C. t< <^_ 






: ,:^ser' c < 


- «L < 


9i«r c^ c 


' «■:_ c 


■ **-L' <•< 


*c < 


«*c: <2c 


<i:. '-. 


'ad <~ <; 


<sr > 


<r <- <: ■ 


<t: 


<c ^. < 


«C ' ■' ' 


<:i.: *c <: ■ . 


«" '-cc 


<1 ■-'^^ <:■ 


C ■ c- 


ci < <: 


•ic ' <i- 


-- •^-' <^- 


«-^ XS: 


— <-- <:; 


«:-'< 


-,_. c ■<: 


<:: '■ «p' 







^-^ c 


.r < 




<- < 
c c 


^' c 


c: < 




<" <r 



^^^'%,<^< 



ILIBEARY OF CONGRESS.! 

I ^ ! 

I J7¥.e// :jyv..M-^ II 

;3| UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. ^^ 



<3:<: • 


•r< 


3'< 


<<:: 


<5l«- 


tC 


"x;< 


< 


fCC 


<C- 


<«1 i 


•c: 


(<:<-_ ' 


«sr 


cc 


«! 


«i 


<C1 


«3c:. 


«d 


<<C 




cc 





Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
in 2011 witii funding from 
Tine Library of Congress 



littp://www.arcliive.org/details/rejoindertoreplyOOasso 



REJOINDER 

TO THE 

''REPLY" 

OF 

THE HON. HORACE MANN, 

SECEETARY 

OP THE 



a 



REMARKS" 



ASSOCIATION OF BOSTON MASTERS, 



t> . 



SEVENTH ANNUAL EEPORT. 



^ BOSTON: 
CHARLES C. LITTLE AND JAMES BROWN. 
1845. 



At a meeting of the Association of Boston Masters, 
held on the 26th of December last, a Committee was 
appointed to rejoin to the " Reply " of the Hon. Horace 
Mann. The report of that Committee was submitted to 
the Association at their next regular meeting, held on the 
30th of January. 

The following Rejoinder comprises that report, together 
with separate rejoinders by the writers of the last three 
articles of the " Remarks," to those sections of the 
" Reply," respectively, which are devoted to their articles. 



REPORT. 



Your Committee have carefully reviewed the " Reply " of 
the Hon. Horace Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board 
of Education, to the " Remarks " of the Association of Boston 
Masters on his Seventh Annual Report ; and after an attentive 
examination of the " Remarks," in connection with the 
" Reply," have arrived at the following conclusions : First, 
that the Secretary has wholly misjudged the motives of the 
Masters in the publication of the " Remarks." Secondly, 
that he has, in very many instances, entirely misconceived the 
sentiments of the writers, as represented in their several arti- 
cles. Thirdly, that he has done them great injustice in his 
quotations from their writings. Admitting the truth of these 
conclusions, it is obvious that the Secretary's "Reply " 
has greatly misrepresented the Association of Masters, and 
placed them in a false position before the public. We do 
not say that this misrepresentation was designed on the part 
of the Secretary ; but, we feel no hesitation in asserting, that 
it is the preeminent characteristic of his " Reply ; " and its 
importance is greatly enhanced, from the fact that it is two- 
fold, involving not only the educational opinions of the 
teachers, and their professional reputation, but their integrity 
as men, and, consequently, their moral reputation. 

On the other hand, an unfortunate aspect of the " Re- 



marks " is, that in attempting to controvert some opinions 
advocated in the official writings of the Secretary, — and 
the promulgation of which tends to place teachers who have 
not adopted them in an unworthy position, — they do not 
define sufficiently the field of the controversy between the 
Secretary and the Association, and consequently bear in 
too great a degree the character of unqualified criticism. 
We do not admit by this, that the " Remarks " have done 
the Secretary injustice, in the discussion of those educational 
questions which are at issue between himself and the Asso- 
ciation of Masters, or, that the criticisms therein contained 
are untrue or unfair ; but that in failing to acknowledge suf- 
ficiently the usefulness of Mr. Mann's efforts in those depart- 
ments of his official labors not relating to these questions, 
the " Remarks " seem to be susceptible of a more extended 
application to his official character than was intended by the 
Association. Moreover, certain references to opinions of 
gentlemen not necessarily connected with this controversy, 
and for whom, personally, the members of the Association 
entertain the highest respect, seem, unfortunately, by impli- 
cation, disrespectful and uncourteous, though they were not 
so designed. 

In view of these conclusions, your Committee, while they 
are fully aware of the necessity of a rejoinder from the Asso- 
ciation of Masters, still conceive the character of such rejoin- 
der to be a consideration of the highest importance. They 
perceive, at the outset, the difficulty which must attend them 
in attempting to reply with justice and candor, to an opponent 
by whom they have been first placed in a false and disad- 
vantageous position, and then hotly pressed with the keenest 
weapons of polemical warfare. Commencing with the 
intention of examining carefully and dispassionately the 
character of the Teachers' " Remarks," and the Secretary's 
" Reply," of presenting their respective claims to truth 
and justice, they are aware of the many obstacles which 
they must encounter in adhering to their purpose. The 



pleasing qualities of style must be sacrificed to a faithful 
investigation of details, often minute and uninteresting. That 
■strong feeling which gives forcible utterance to thought, and 
Joose reins to the imagination, — and hence, eloquence to writ- 
ing, — but which, in personal controversy, tends to mislead the 
judgment and to vitiate its conclusions, must be subjected to a 
desire for truth in its simplest and most honest forms. They 
feel that theirs is an ungrateful task. They are called on to 
speak in their dull tones, to those whose ears have listened to 
the sweet voice of music ; to hold up the graceless and naked 
forms of facts, to those who have been borne away into the 
realms of fancy, and whose eyes have feasted on visions of 
fairy splendor. From sentiments which have been sent forth 
glowing with the beauty of the Secretary's peculiar eloquence, 
they must strip off their fair attire, and present them once 
more in the uninteresting aspect of sober reality. They must 
pluck away the graceful flowers of rhetoric whenever they are 
not woven around the brow of truth, and bare the deformity 
which their charms concealed. These are some of the diffi- 
culties which must attend their labors. But conscious of hon- 
est intentions on their own part, and convinced that a love of 
truth, and an earnest desire for the promulgation of correct 
principles, are the motives which have governed, and still do 
govern, the Association of Masters, they will endeavor to treat 
justly and impartially that portion of the controversy which 
they review ; to be unshrinking in their concessions, when con- 
cession is required, but equally firm and decided in the defence 
of what they believe has been unjustly assailed. 

The first consideration which claims our attention in the 
reply of the Secretary, is the charge -of unworthy motives in 
the publication of the "Remarks." The character and sub- 
stance of this charge may be learned from the following pas- 
sages extracted from different portions of the first section. 

" It was not until then, that I clearly saw their mutilated and gar- 
bled quotations; the forced transposition of paragraphs, so that an 
inference drawn from one might be made to cover another-; the sup*. 



pression of parts of sentences whose object was to explain and define 
the rest, and, generally, the anxious spirit of misrepresentation that 
presided over their preparation." — p. 6. 

" But it is a question of justice, of truth, of moral power, where 
annihilation awaits the wrong, however haughty or numerous they 
may be, who uphold its banner. It is not the number of the partner- 
ship, but the moral solvency of the firm, with which I am concerned ; 
or, to draw an illustration from their own art, — if they are right, 
they represent a row of thirty-one integers, but if wrong, as I can 
easily show, then they are like thirty-one Vulgar Fractions multiplied 
into themselves, — yielding a most contemptible product." — p. 12. 

" The ' Remarks ' of course had their instigators. Active and 
unscrupulous individuals, from motives peculiar to themselves, might 
easily have obtained a reference of my Report to a ' Committee of 
the Association.' " — p. 72. 

" The truth is, that all this crimination, on account of my ' early 
Reports,' is an after-thought. If I were so unjust, so ignorant, so 
imbecile, seven years ago, why did they not sound the alarm earlier ? 
It was my Seventh Report, describing beautiful schools, managed on 
Christian principles, and presided over by bands of noble teachers ; 
— a description of which ought to have excited emulation rather 
than envy ; — or it was things even extraneous to that, — which 
stirred up the instigators of these ' Remarks,' to their work. These 
instigators must have said of the Prussian teachers, 

' There is a daily beauty in their lives-, 
That makes us ugly.' " — p. 73. 

From the sentiments contained in the above quotations, and 
others of a similar character frequently and forcibly impressed 
upon the mind of the reader, in the different sections of the 
" Reply," we learn that Mr. Mann views in a most unworthy 
light the motives which influenced the Association of Masters 
in the publication of the " Remarks." He believes them to 
have undertaken the work at the instigation of " active and 
unscrupulous individuals;" and to have been influenced by- 
envy, jealousy, and resentment. Your Committee deny the 
right of the Secretary to bring any such charge against the 
Association, or to impugn the motives of individual members ; 
and they do not hesitate to assert in the most positive manner^ 
that nothing has transpired in the " Association " which can 
with justice be attributed either to personal hostility towards 
Mr. Mann, or to a foolish "jealousy of their reputation." 

'We believe that the " Reply " does great injustice to the 



Association of Masters, in imputing to them unworthy mo- 
tives in sanctioning the "Remarks;" and we feel the fullest 
confidence in disclaiming, in behalf of the Association, any 
other design than that of defending, fairly and honestly, 
some of their principles of instruction and discipline, which 
the Secretary had attacked in his official writings. And 
though for this they are charged in the " Reply " with a desire 
to "arrest" the progress of education, and to "petrify" its 
present systems, rather than to improve them, yet, we believe 
that there is no ground for charging them with any more un- 
worthy motive, than the desir« to defend their honest opinions. 
If the " Remarks " fail to acknowledge sufficiently the useful- 
ness of the Secretary's official labors, it surely is as reason- 
able, and as just, to account for it from the fact, that the 
" Remarks " were written in defence of principles already 
attacked, and held up to ridicule in the Secretary's writings, 
as from any sinister motive. Nay, it is even more reasona- 
ble, for it is more than probable that any one who was about 
to make an unjust and malignant attack upon a public writer, 
would seek to cover such attack, and to fortify his cause with 
crafty acknowledgments and fair professions ; while, on the 
other hand, he whose principles are placed in the defensive, 
and to his own belief unfairly so, would be likely to be ear- 
nest and impatient in his defence. Besides, if any charge 
lies against the " Association " for ungenerous treatment of 
the Secretary, in omitting to acknowledge his usefulness, 
a charge of still graver character may be brought against 
the Secretary for representing the " Remarks " as designed to 
arrest the progress of educational reform, because they attempt 
to controvert some of his educational opinions. But what^ 
ever may be the arguments on either side in relation to this 
question of motive, yom' Committee are of opinion that a 
conscientious disavowal of any feeling of personal hostility 
to the Secretary, is the best testimony that can be offered. 
Such a disavowal has been already made. It is true that 
the sentiments of the Masters, as they are misrepresented in 
the " Reply" seem to indicate feelings of hostility towards the 



8 

Secretaiy, but the Masters have nowhere given utterance m 
the " Remarks," to sentiments such as are there attributed to 
them. In the very commencement of his " Reply," the Secre- 
"tary asserts that the " Remarks " impute to him a feeling of 
hostility towards the Boston Masters, Your Committee can 
iind no such imputation in either of the four articles, nor do 
they believe that any such imputation was designed by either 
of the writers. True, it was thought that the Secretary had 
done injustice to the Boston Teachers in common with others, 
in his comparison of foreign schools with our own ; but it was 
imputed to his zeal in the promulgation of his own educational 
opinions, — which in itself was honest and praiseworthy, — and 
not to any motive of hostility to the Teachers. It was, how- 
ever, with the influence of the Secretary's writings that the 
Teachers were concerned, and not with the motives which 
prompted him to write. In allusion to this, the " Remarks '^ 
expressly say, in the first section, p. 17, " Personalities and im- 
peachment of motives are here entirely disclaimed." The 
" Association " must, in this defence, of course, abide by the 
sentiments expressed in the " Remarks," and if those senti- 
ments are in any instance unjust, they are bound to reject 
them. But, they can by no means be expected to become 
answerable for sentiments which they have never felt, and to 
which they are made to give utterance, only by the miscon- 
struction of another. 

The first " assertion " in the " Remarks " which the Secre- 
tary deems worthy of notice, is a statement on page 6th, in 
regard to the cause of education. The following is the quo- 
tation of that "assertion," given in the " Reply," together with 
a comment introduced by the Secretary to explain its 
meaning: 

" The good cause [the cause of Common Schools] was never 
more prosperous than at the time the Board of Education was 
formed." 

This assertion, he says, 

— " Is bold even to madness. It is a point blank contradiction of 
five printed volumes of School Abstracts, and the testimony of more 
than two thousand school committee men. Did not these ' practical 



9 

educators' know, that from 1647 to 1826, the laws were altered 
and altered, again and again, to adapt them to the decreasing de- 
mands of the public in regard to schools." 

In connection with the above quotation, the Secretar}? pro- 
ceeds through several successive pages with an overwhelming 
accumulation of evidence to show the low state of common 
schools, at that period to which the " assertion " relates, and 
after a multiplicity of statistics, which define, to some extent, 
that vast and important field of labor upon which he entered 
at the commencement of his official duties, he triumphantly 
closes with the following sentence : " Such are a few proofs, 
on a few points, respecting the ' prosperous ' condition of the 
Common Schools in 1837." Now, it is obvious from the con- 
nection in which the " assertion " is found in the " Remarks," 
that the author spoke of the interests of education in general, 
and not alone of " the cause of common schools," as the Sec- 
retary intimates ; for directly before, and introductory to, the 
statement, we find the following language : " With all the 
rude fixtures and other inconveniences for school purposes, 
an enlightened public sentiment was early formed . which 
sustained the State Legislature in giving hundreds of thou- 
sands of dollars to the colleges, and other seminaries of 
learnina:." 

No one can doubt that the writer was speaking, in this con- 
nection, of the " cause of education," in relation to all its 
interests, and to its general progress. But admitting for the 
argument, that the Secretary's inserted comment was a correct 
one, and that the " assertion " did refer to the " cause of com- 
mon schools " alone, it surely did not refer to the condition of 
" the common schools," in regard to which he proceeds to 
give so much statistical information, and upon an alleged 
question of which, he adduces such a mass of evidence. 

The very explanations which follow the " assertion," in the 
" Remarks," will substantiate this position. 

" And the good cause was never more prosperous than at the time 
the Board of Education was formed ; and the establishment of such 

2 



10 

a body, with little or no opposition, certainly indicated a healthy 
tone in public sentiment. All the friends of the common schools, 
from the governor to the most humble citizen, felt a desire to see 
these institutions improved, and their blessings extended to every 
child in the Commonwealth." 

Here the writer speaks expressly of the tone of public sen- 
timent towards common schools ; that is, of the prosperity of 
the " cause of common schools," in its relations to public 
opinion ; and not in any way of the condition of those schools, 
except to aver, that all who were friendly to them, from the 
governor to the humblest citizen, felt a desire to see them 
" improved in their condition, and their blessings extended to 
every child in the Commonwealth." 

It may seem, at first, somewhat inconsistent, that the evi- 
dence given in regard to the " condition of common schools," 
should, in this case, be set aside as irrelevant to the question 
of the prosperity of the " cause;" but it will be seen, upon 
a moment's reflection, that a change in public sentiment 
(upon which the prosperity of the cause depends) may be 
effected by means that operate much more rapidly than those 
by the immediate agency of which, the " condition " of schools 
is to be improved. After a long period of neglect towards 
those institutions, the public mind might be aroused to a sense 
of their importance, by only being made to feel the destitution 
of their privileges, and thus the cause might become at once 
" prosperous," while their condition would still be " deplora- 
ble." But again ; to prove the validity of the assertion, that 
the " cause was never more prosperous," we will refer 
to the evidence adduced by the Secretary himself, in his 
"Reply." In relation to the "assertion" he says — "This 
assertion is bold even to madness. It is a point blank con- 
tradiction of five printed volumes of school abstracts, and the 
testimony of more than two thousand school committee men- 
Did not these ' practical educators ' know, that from 1647 to 
1826, the laws were altered and altered, again and again, to 
adapt them to the decreasifig- demands of the public in regard 
to schools ? " 



11 

We answer, that all this, " these practical educators " 
knew, and more, — they knew some most important facts, 
which the Secretary, in adroitly sliding off from the " cause " 
of common schools in 1S26 to their condition in 1837, has 
forgotten to mention; and which they will now present. 
He gives us the evidence with regard to the " cause " of 
common schools from 1647 to 1826, but then — as if he 
had suddenly beheld the truth — -he stops; leaving the his- 
tory down to 1837 untold. We will proceed to give it. 
From the evidence which he adduces, it seems that from 1647 
to 1826, the " cause " had been constantly sinking in public esti- 
mation, and the condition of schools consequently deteriora- 
ting. But at the latter period, (1826,) men of ardent minds 
and earnest benevolence, —a class, who, from their enlarged 
and generous sympathies are ever the first to feel and fully 
realize the calamity of public ills, — came forth to stem the 
ebbing tide. Their efforts were prospered, and their generous 
enterprise succeeded. The mighty waves of public sentiment, 
which, it seems, for nearly two centuries had been wafting 
away from the people of Massachusetts some of their dearest 
.blessings, came flowing in and bearing back their treasure ; 
wasted, it is true, in its conflict with the elements, but still 
their best heritage, the " ark of their safety." From that pe- 
riod, then, (1826,) the " cause " began to prosper, and in 1830, 
the American Institute of Instruction was founded, enlisting 
in its benevolent purposes some of the best minds, and some 
of the ablest and most distinguished educators of the day. 
The genial influence of that institution was then to the cause 
of public education, what the sunshine is to the sickly plant, — 
it gave vigor and activity to its exhausted energies. Thus, 
^' the good cause " increased in prosperity, until, in the year 
1837, a Board of Education was instituted by the State Legis- 
lature, to supervise the interests of the common schools ; to 
improve their condition^ and to extend and multiply their privi- 
leges. Here, then, was a new and most important era in the 
history of our public schools ; here, after a night of centuries > 



12 

rose the bright morning-star of their destiny, to gladden the 
hearts of the true and the faithful; It was in relation to this 
period that the " assertion " was made in the " Remarks." — 
not that the " condition of common schools " was " prosper- 
ous," but that the " cause " was never more prosperous. 

It is not strange that the Secretary, with his construction of 
the "assertion," should declare it to be "bold even to mad- 
ness ; " and that in his consequent contempt for its " Thirty-one " 
vouchers, he should aim at them so frequently the shafts of 
ridicule and sarcasm. But it is a matter of surprise, that so 
distinguished a scholar should utterly misconceive the mean- 
ing of language, as obvious as that which set forth the 
statement in the " Remarks." With such interpretation of 
their meaning, we do not wonder that the Secretary should 
declare education to be treated by the "Remarks," not as an 
" advancing but as a perfected science y" and that their object 
" seemed to be to arrest and petrify it where it now is." 
Nevertheless, such interpretation does great injustice to the 
Association of Masters, and has greatly misled the public 
mind from the true points of the controversy. Writers in 
some of the public journals, deceived by this special plead- 
ing of the Secretary, have actually stated that an important 
question in the controversy between the Masters and Mr. 
Mann, is in regard to the necessity of improvement in the 
condition of the common schools; a question upon which, it 
is believed, the Boston Masters hold but one opinion, in com- 
mon with all the friends of education. Indeed, it is expressly 
stated in the first section of the " Remarks," with reference to 
this question, that there was a " desire for improvement,^^ on 
the part of " all the friends of common schools, from the 
governor to the most humble citizen." It is honestly believed 
that since that period, this desire has been cherished and quick- 
ened in many portions of the Commonwealth, by the efforts of 
the Hon. Secretary ; and it is sincerely hoped that it will ever 
continue to exist in the public mind, with power and energy 
sufficient to make an impression upon the condition of com- 



13 

mon schools, commensurate with the demands of the most 
enlightened pubhc opinion. On this point the Secretary has 
received a wrong impression from the " Remarks." He has 
entirely misunderstood the sentiments of the Association in 
relation to his official character. There was no intention, on 
the part of the Masters, to depreciate his character in this respect, 
nor is it believed that they underrated his efforts in behalf of 
the cause of education. It was not supposed that the Secre- 
tary's labors were limited to the discussion of those principles 
of education alone, which govern the internal operation of 
schools, — which regulate the details of instruction and dis- 
cipline. There are many other important interests embraced 
in the general cause of public instruction, which require care- 
ful and efficient supervision to secure their prosperity. The 
Secretary's duties with relation to these interests, comprise an 
extended field of labor, to which he has undoubtedly devoted 
constant and untiring attention. It is expressly said in one 
portion of the " Remarks," that the Association " by no means 
refuse him (the Secretary) credit for entire devotion to the 
cause of education," but that they believe he has failed to 
decide correctly upon the comparative merits of the different 
systems of instruction and discipline^ from the want of a thor- 
ough practical knowledge of their operation and results. 

Yet the Secretary seems to have deemed it necessary to defend 
himself from what he denominates " an implied charge " of 
neglect of duty, by giving the statistics of his numerous and 
burdensome official labors during the last seven years. And 
to make his defence still more impressive, he holds up the 
literary labors of the " Association " in contrast with his own. 
Upon this latter point, he says : " The Thirty-one display the 
titles of eighteen lectures, which, as they say, had been read 
before their ' Association ' by members, in the space of two years. 
Though I would not pretend to compare the quality of my writ- 
ings with that of theirs, yet I may say that I have delivered 
double this number of lectures and addresses on education, 
every year since ray appointment. Eighteen lectures in two 



14 

years for thirty-one men ! About one lecture apiece in four 
years!" Without discussing here the necessity of such a de- 
fence on the part of the Secretary, we will examine, for a mo- 
ment, this ingenuous and skilful calculation. The Secretary 
exclaims, " eighteen lectures in two years for thirty-one men ! 
about one lecture apiece in four years ! " A very ludicrous 
idea, to be sure, and one that seems to place the literary labors 
of the Teachers in a ridiculous light; but let us look at the true 
view of these statements. The Association held their regular 
meetings on the evening of the last Thursday of each month, 
excepting the months of May and August ; making, in all, 
during those " two years," twenty meetings. At two of 
those meetings, the time was occupied in discussions, and in 
transacting their general business ; at the other eighteen meet- 
ings, different lectures were delivered upon different subjects, 
by members of the " Association." Surely, the Secretary 
cannot have such a rage for lectures, that he would desire 
more than one to be delivered upon the same evening ? Yet 
because there were but eighteen, he enters into a minute cal- 
culation to ascertain the number of lines written by each 
member of the " Association " per day ; and seems to think 
it such a marvellously witty conceit that, not contented with 
that, he appends a comparative calculation to render it still 
more ridiculous. Verily, truth and common sense must have 
been sorely pressed to make way for such forced and attenuated 
ridicule. But "J," he says, " have delivered twice that number 
of lectures and addresses upon education, every year since my 
appointment." Does he mean by this, that he has written and 
delivered thirty-six different lectures every year for seven years ; 
making, in all, two hundred and fifty -two different lectures 
upon education ? if so, then have his labors been indeed Her» 
culean ! Or, does he mean that he has delivered a few dif- 
ferent lectures, say ten or twelve, over and over again, some 
twenty or thirty times, in his " five circuits over the Common- 
wealth?" if so, then has he no great cause for boasting; for, 
by this latter calculation, he would write not quite two lectures 



15 

to the year, — a " literary birth " not marvellous at all for one 
whose glowing mind is an intellectual furnace, fusing the 
subjects of its investigation ; and " sending forth the simplest 
elements of nature so stripped of rudeness, and so wondrously 
adorned, one scarce would know them as the forms of earth." 
But we will return from following the Secretary in this 
graceless digression, and though we see in the distance that 
bright " paradise of fools," to which he has so kindly sought to 
introduce us, yet matters of grave moment claim our attention. 
It is said in the " Reply " that the " E-emarks " " treat educa- 
tion as a perfected science ; " and it has elsewhere been respond- 
ed, that the Schoolmasters of Boston, satisfied with their pres- 
ent attainments in the science of education, are leagued together 
to oppose improvement and reform. Lest the " Association " 
should be made to appear inconsistent in the above expression 
of their sentiments, in the minds of those who have yielded 
credence to such views of their opinions and motives, it is 
proper to consider, for a moment, the relation of the Masters 
to this question. It is true, that the Masters have advocated 
certain principles of education adopted by themselves, and it 
is believed generally adopted by the present class of educators, 
in opposition to the opinions entertained by the Secretary of 
the Board of Education; but they have founded their argu- 
ments in favor of those principles, upon general reasoning, and 
not by any means upon the success of their own practice ; nor 
have they limited the possible success of those principles to the 
extent of their own skill in applying them ; hence, it is unjust 
to charge them with a desire to arrest the progress of education, 
at that point to which they have themselves attained. They 
have, it is true, claimed the privilege of being heard upon these 
questions as practical educators, because they have learned from 
the daily application of the principles involved, more intimately 
than they could otherwise have done, their relation to the ne- 
cessities of the youthful mind, and their adaptness to its un- 
developed capacities. But though experience has formed their 
educational opinions, they have not adduced the results of 



16 

that experience, in the " Remarks," as arguments in support of 
these opinions. They are charged in the " Reply," with per- 
petually challenging " respect for their opinions and for them- 
selves " as " practical educators;" but they have presented no 
educational doctrines in the " Remarks " upon their own per- 
sonal authority, or for which they have not fairly given their 
reasons ; and if these reasons be not valid, then must the doc- 
trines, in support of which they are given, fall to the ground ; 
for where argument commences, personal authority terminates ; 
and the question then is not of the character of him who 
argues, but of the validity of the argument. 

The " Remarks " also introduce the testimony of several 
distinguished Mayors of our city, chairmen of the School 
Committee, in regard to the condition of our schools; yet 
it is surely not with a desire to prove that they were abso- 
lutely excellent and needed no improvement ; for the sole 
object of forming the " Association " of Masters was to 
improve their condition ; but simply to show that they 
were thought to be improving under the operation of prin- 
ciples which some pronounced radically wrong, and which 
were believed to be so represented by the annual reports of the 
Secretary. In connection with this matter, there is one point 
in the " Reply " worthy of notice. It pronounces the spirit of 
the " Remarks " to be " unphilosophical," and cites in contra- 
distinction to it the ideas of the founders of the American Insti- 
tute, given in the prefatory notice of their first volume, that 
"education is an experimental science," — a science "whose 
principles are to be fixed, and its capacities to be determined; 
by experiment." Now, it is positively known, that many of 
the Masters have pursued, at different times, different systems 
of instruction and discipline, and that their present educa- 
tional " principles " have been " fixed by experiment;" — and 
your Committee cannot understand in what way the public 
avowal of some of those principles thus " fixed by experi- 
ment," contravenes the above-quoted opinion of the distin- 
guished founders of the Institute. The Boston Masters can 



17 



most assuredly claim the authority of this canon of the Insti- 
tute, in common with other experimenting educators, and may 
claim also to be equally philosophical, unless the Secretary 
deem it unphilosophical to arrive at any other results than 
those coincident with his own opinions. 

The next matter which claims our attention in the " Reply," 
is the allegation of an " attempt," on the part of the writer in 
the first section of the " Remarks," to show that the Secretary 
spoke " unkindly and unjustly " of teachers, as a body. The 
following quotation from the " Reply," will show the ground 
upon which this allegation is based : 

" To show the character of this attempt, let me place a single 
clause of their alleged quotation from my Report, and the corre- 
sponding passage of the Report itself, side by side. I italicise the 
words of my Report, which, for the purpose of altering my meaning, 
are omitted in the " Remarks." 



[qUOTATIOI.J 

[Mr. Mann] "declared that the teach- 
ers of the schools, — in the absence of 
all opportanilies to quality themselves, 
— were — deeply and widely deficient 
in the two indispensable prerequisites 
for their office; namely, a knowledge 
of the human mind, as the subject of 
improvement, and a knowledge of the 
means best adapted wisely to unfold 
and direct its growing faculties." 



[report of 1838, pp. 27-8.] 
It appeared from facts ascertained 
during the last part of the year 1837, — 
that the teachers of the schools, al- 
though with very few exceptions, persons 
of estimable character, and of great pri- 
vate worth, yet in the absence of all 
opportunities to qualifv themselves /o?- 
the performance of the most difficult 
and delicate task which, in the arrange- 
ments of Prondence, is committed to h%i- 
man hands, were, necessarily, and there- 
fore without fault of their own, deeply 
and widely deficient, &c. [as in the 
quotation.] 

The following are the quotations as they stand in the 
" Remarks." 

" What would be thought of a general who, with a most powerful 
enemy before him, should publicly announce that his soldiers were 
weak and inefficient, though they had shown themselves powerful 
and effective, on great emergencies, in driving the barbarians from 
the wilderness ? Did not Mr. Mann act in such a manner, when, in 
his early reports, he said much of ' incompetent teachers,' — ' igno- 
rance of teachers,' — ' depressed state of common schools ; ' — and 
declared ' that the schools were under a sleepy supervision,' — ' and 
that the teachers of the schools,' — ' in the absence of all opportu- 
nities to qualify themselves,' — -'were' — 'deeply and widely de- 
ficient in the two indispensable prerequisites for their office ; namely, 

3 



18 

a knowledge of the human mind as the subject of improvement, and 
a knowledge of the means best adapted wisely to unfold and direct 
its growing faculties ; ' and, consequently, ' that the common school 
system of Massachusetts had fallen into a state of general unsound- 
ness and delility ? ' " — p. 10. 

It will be seen at a glance, that the quotations given in the 
" Remarks " do not present so unfavorable an aspect of the 
Secretary's language, as that " clause " which he has given in 
his " Reply," and which he professes to quote from the " Re- 
marks." For, the sentences which were extracted from the 
Second Annual Report of the Secretary are not quoted in the 
" Remarks " as if in consecutive connection, but are given as 
separate extracts, — as expressions of the Secretary's opinions 
in relation to teachers. The " Reply" conveys the impression 
that the " Remarks " present those sentences as constituting 
one continuous clause, and calls it a quotation. A careful 
reader, however, would not be deceived by this — mistake of 
the Secretary, for he gives the quotations more correctly on the 
preceding page of the " Reply." Granting, however, that the 
language of the Secretary in his Second Annual Report, was 
more courteous towards teachers than that of the passages 
quoted in the " Remarks ; " yet the clause, as it is in the 
Report, would have been equally to the point in showing the 
sweeping conclusions of the Secretary, with regard to the 
present class of teachers. 

But, in order to decide upon the amount of injustice done 
to the Secretary in these quotations, it is necessary to compare 
the charge in the " Reply " with their intent and meaning, as 
they are expressed in the " Remarks." He complains, that 
in those quotations his " qualifying remarks " are sup- 
pressed ; a sentence fabricated which he " never could have 
written," and a signification imputed which he " never in- 
tended ; " and, in the same connection, he declares that he 
" spoke of the teachers kindly and approvingly, and exonera- 
ted them from blameworthiness." He here, evidently, in- 
tends to convey the impression that the " Remarks," by their 



19 

*Vfabricated sentences," make him attach blame to the teach- 
ers as a class, and that they represent him as charging them, 
not only with intellectual deficiency, but also with delin- 
quency, with moral deficiency. Were this the case, it would, 
most assuredly be unjust towards the Secretary ; for there is 
not the shadow of a doubt, that, in regard to their moral char- 
acter, he entertained towards teachers, as a class, no other 
than sentiments of respect. But such is not the case ; no such 
construction can be put upon the quotations as they are 
expressed in the " Remarks," nor is it possible that a candid 
reader could derive such an impression from them. Among 
the very quotations af which the offending sentence is com- 
posed, occur the following : " and the teachers of the 
schools," " in the absence of all opportunities to qualify them- 
selves," " were " ^' deeply and widely deficient." Here 
is a quotation made by the writer of the first section of the 
^' Remarks," showing that the Secretary deemed it impossible 
for the teachers to qualify themselves, because of the absence 
of all opportunities to do so, and consequently that he could 
not have attached any blame to them for their " deficiencies." 
Again, on the page following that in which those quotations 
occur in the " Remarks," in relation to the same subject, we 
find the following quotation from the same Report: "without 
fault of their own, the teachers had been," &c., showing that 
the Secretary expressly exculpated the teachers from blame. 

We leave this point with the single remark, that had the 
writer of that section intended to do such injustice to Mr. 
Mann as the " Reply " imputes to him the desire of doing, he 
surely would not have quoted from his official writings passa- 
ges so entirely subversive of that intention. But, it will be 
inquired. What then was the intent, and what is the purport 
of those quotations ? 

In answer, we will refer to that clause which the Secretary 
has quoted in the " Reply " from his own Report, and which 
we have already given. In that clause he distinctly speaks of 
" an absence of all opportunities to qualify teachers for the 



20 

performance of the most difficult and delicate task, which, 
in the arrangements of Providence, is committed to human 
hands ; " and infers that the great deficiency of teachers " in the 
two indispensable prerequisites of their office ; namely, a knowl- 
edge of the human mind as the subject of improvement, and a 
knowledge of the means best adapted wisely to unfold and di- 
rect its growing faculties," is a necessary consequence of the 
absence of such opportunities. But what were those " oppor- 
tunities " which Were thus wanting for the qualification of 
teachers? They surely were not select schools, academies, 
or colleges, for the privileges of these institutions were by no 
means limited ; and those of the two former classes were acces- 
sible to all who were qualifying themselves for teachers. No ; 
they were institutions to be devoted especially to the instruction 
of teachers ; designed to qualify them in the two great prerequi- 
sites of their office ; namely, a knowledge of the human mind, 
and a knowledge of the best means of unfolding and directing 
its growing faculties. From this it appears, that the charge of 
" deficiency " must take effect against all teachers who had not 
enjoyed the opportunities of such institutions. Here, then, is 
the ground of the complaint preferred against the Secretary, 
in the first section of the "Remarks," for disparaging the 
teachers. The intent of the quotations introduced in that 
connection was to show, that the Secretary had done injus- 
tice to very many of the present class of teachers by his 
sweeping inferences and unqualified conclusions. The pur- 
port of those quotations is, that teachers were deficient in a 
knowledge of the human mind, and of the means best adapt- 
ed to unfold and direct its faculties. The charge of the 
Secretary, as it is made to appear by the quotations in the 
" Remarks," is, then, in relation to the intellectual, and not to 
the moral attainments of the teachers. It is intellectual dis- 
paragement, and not moral, as the Secretary intimates in his 
" Reply." And that the Secretary does disparage the intel- 
lectual character of the teacher, he surely will not deny ; in- 
deed, he virtually acknowledges this in his " Reply," when he 



21 

says, in speaking of those very quotations, " Had I, how- 
ever, supposed teachers capable of such perversions as this, 
I should have charged them with more than intellectual 
deficiencies." 

But a few quotations from the Secretary's Seventh Annual 
Report will be, perhaps, more convincing evidence — if such 
be needed — in deciding this question. These extracts, be it 
understood, are taken from different parts of the Report, but 
are quoted in the order of their pages. 

In speaking of the Scottish schools, the Report says, p. 62 : 

" The Scotch teachers, the great body of whom are graduates of 
colleges, or have attended the university before beginning to keep 
school, are perfectly competent to instruct in this thorough manner. 
I think it obvious, however, that this mode of teaching may be car- 
ried too far, as many of our words, though wholly or in part of Latin 
or Greek derivation, have lost their etymological signification, and 
assumed a conventional one. 

" But all this, — admirable in its way, — was hardly worthy to be 
mentioned in comparison with another characteristic of the Scottish 
schools, viz : the mental activity with which the exercises were con- 
ducted, both on the part of teacher and pupils. I entirely despair of 
exciting in any other person, by a description, the vivid impressions 
of mental activity or celerity, which the daily operation of these 
schools produced in my own mind. Actual observation alone can 
give any thing approaching to the true idea. I do not exaggerate 
when I say that the most active and lively schools I have ever seen 
in the United States, must be regarded as dormitories, if compared 
with the fervid life of the Scotch schools ; and, by the side of theirs, 
our pupils would seem to be hybernating animals just emerging from 
their torpid state, and as yet but half conscious of the possession of 
life and faculties." 

Again, with reference to the same schools, p. 67 : 

"At the end of the recitation, both teacher and pupils would glow 
with heat, and be covered with perspiration, as though they had been 
contending in the race or the ring. It would be utterly impossible 
for the children to bear such fiery excitement, if the physical exer- 
cise were not as violent as the mental is intense. But children who 
actually leap into the air from the energy of their impulses, and repeat 
this as often as once in two minutes, on an average, will not suffer 
from suppressed activity of the muscular system. 

" The mental labor performed in a given period in these schools, 
by children under the age of twelve or fourteen years, is certainly 
many times more than I have ever seen in any schools of our own, 



22 

composed of children as young. With us, the lower classes do not 
ordinarily work more than half the time while they are in the school- 
room. Even many members of the reciting classes are drowsy, and 
listless, and evidently following some train of thought, — if they are 
thinking at all, — whose scene lies beyond the walls of the school- 
house, rather than applying their minds to the subject-matter of the 
lesson, or listening to those who are reciting, or feigning to recite it. 
But in the mode above described, there is no sleepiness, no droning, 
no inattention. The moment an eye wanders, or a countenance be- 
comes listless, it is roused by a special appeal ; and the contagion of 
the excitement is so great as to operate upon every mind and frame 
that is not an absolute non-conductor to life." 

On teaching children to read, pp. 89, 90 : 

" Compare the above method with that of calling up a class of 
abcdarians, — or, what is more common, a single child, and while 
the teacher holds a book or a card before him, and with a pointer in 
his hand, says, a, and he echoes a ; then b, and he echoes b ; and so 
on until the vertical row of lifeless and ill-favored characters is com- 
pleted, and then of remanding him to his seat, to sit still and look at 
vacancy. If the child is bright, the time which passes during this 
lesson is the only part of the day when he does not think. Not a 
single faculty of the mind is occupied except that of imitating sounds ; 
and even the number of these imitations amounts only to twenty -six. 
A parrot or an idiot could do the same thing. And so of the organs 
and members of the body. They are condemned to inactivity ; — 
for the child who stands most like a post is most approved ; nay, he 
is rebuked if he does not stand like a post. A head that does not 
turn to the right or left, an eye that lies moveless in its socket, 
hands hanging motionless at the side, and feet immovable as those of 
a statue, are the points of excellence, while the child is echoing the 
senseless table of a, b, c. As a general rule, six months are spent 
before the twenty-six letters are mastered, though the same child 
would learn the names of twenty-six playmates or twenty -six play- 
things in one or two days." 

Also, pp. 91, 92, on the absurdity of teaching to read by 
beginning with the alphabet : 

" I am satisfied that our greatest error in teaching children to read, 
lies in beginning with the alphabet; — in giving them what are called 
the ' Names of the Letters,' a, J, c, &c. How can a child to whom 
nature offers such a profusion of beautiful objects, — of sights and 
sounds and colors, — and in whose breast so many social feelings 
spring up ; — how can such a child be expected to turn with delight 
from all these to the stiff and lifeless column of the alphabet ? How 
can one who as yet is utterly incapable of appreciating the remote 
benefits, which in after-life reward the acquisition of knowledge, 



23 

derive any pleasure from an exercise which presents neither beauty 
to his eye, nor music to his ear, nor sense to his understanding ? 

" Ahhough in former reports and publications I have dwelt at 
length upon what seems to me the absurdity of teaching to read by 
ieginning with the alphabet, yet I feel constrained to recur to the 
subject again, — being persuaded that no thorough reform will ever 
be effected in our schools until this practice is abolished." 

Again, p. 99, with reference to the same subject : 

" And I despair of any effective improvement in teaching young 
children to read, until the teachers of our primary schools shall 
qualify themselves to teach in this manner ; — I say until they shall 
qualify themselves, for they may attempt it in such a rude and awk- 
ward way as will infallibly incur a failure. As an accompaniment 
to this, they should also be able to give instruction according to the 
lautir or phonic method. It is only in this way that the present stu- 
pefying and repulsive process of learning to read can be changed 
into one full of interest, animation and instructiveness, and a toilsome 
work of months be reduced to a pleasant one of weeks." 

On the study of grammar, p. 105 : 

" Great attention is paid to Grammar, or as it is usually called in 
the ' Plan of Studies,' — the German language. But I heard very 
little of the ding-dong and recitative of gender, number and case, — 
of government and agreement, which make up so great a portion of 
the grammatical exercises in our schools ; and which the pupils are 
often required to repeat until they really lose all sense of the origi- 
nal meaning of the terms they use." 

On our habits of teaching the higher branches, pp. 122, 123 : 

" Our notions respecting the expediency or propriety of introduc- 
ing the higher branches, as they are called, into our Common 
Schools, are formed from a knowledge of our own school teachers, 
and of the habits that prevail in most of the schools themselves. 
With us, it too often happens that if a higher branch, — geometry, 
natural philosophy, zoology, botany, — is to be taught, both teacher 
and class must have text-books. At the beginning of these text- 
books, all the technical names and definitions belonging to the sub- 
ject are set down. These, before the pupil has any practical idea of 
their meaning, must be committed to memory. The book is then 
studied, chapter by chapter. At the bottom of each page, or at the 
ends of the sections, are questions printed at full length. At the 
recitations, the teacher holds on by these leading-strings. He intro- 
duces no collateral knowledge. He exhibits no relation between 
what is contained in the book, and other kindred subjects, or the 
actual business of men and the affairs of life. At length the day of 
examination comes. The pupils rehearse from memory with a sus- 



24 

picious fluency ; or, being asked for some useful application of their 
knowledge, — some practical connection between that knowledge 
and the concerns of life, — they are silent, or give some ridiculous 
answer which, at once disparages science and gratifies the ill-humor 
of some ignorant satirist." 

Will the Secretary read these quotations from his Seventh 
Annual Report, and then deny that he has disparaged the 
schools and school systems of Massachusetts ? Will he now 
claim to have spoken " approvingly " of " our teachers," 
with their senseless " ding-dong " of instruction, their useless 
"leading-strings," and their "beggarly account" of " abcda- 
rian " accomplishments ? Yet he says, in the very com- 
mencement of his " Reply," " I deny the charge of such 
disparagement." And on the 19th page, with reference to 
the extracts from his Second Annual Report, " Let entire 
passages be takei;i, and there cannot be found an aura, an 
effluvium, an infinitesimal, of disrespect towards teachers, 
as a class." " The Thirty-one tacitly acknowledge how 
few, even of passages like the above, they could find by 
their harping upon and repeating them more than a dozen 
times." We must confess it was unkind to offend the delicate 
ears of the Secretary with the harsh tones of those ungrateful 
words, when he had uttered them, only with the pleasing 
accompaniments of soft and courteous acknowledgments ; it 
was ungenerous to expose his real sentiments in that rude 
way, when he had taken care to clothe them in such goodly 
raiment, that not an " infinitesimal " of their nakedness could 
be discovered. Yet they were his sentiments after all ; and 
though we may regret to have plucked away the rose which 
sent forth such a grateful " effluvium," we surely are not to 
be blamed for the prickly quality of the thorns which its 
leaves concealed. 

That the Secretary was honest in his belief of the deficien- 
cies of teachers, cannot be doubted ; and no other construction 
is put upon his motives in the " Remarks." It was thought, 
it is true, that those deficiencies were magnified in his mind, 
by his belief, that special preparation in institutions designed 



25 

for that purpose, was an almost indispensable prerequisite to 
competent teaching ; and that, in his zeal to build up those 
instimtions, he depreciated too much the attainments of 
teachers who had not enjoyed their privileges. But your 
Committee can nowhere find the idea presented in the 
" Remarks," that he deliberately attacked the reputation of 
that class of teachers who had not enjoyed opportunities 
for such special preparation. The Secretary has entirely mis- 
represented that portion of the " Remarks " which comments, 
in relation to this subject, upon his official writings. He has 
also mistaken the ideas of the Masters in regard to Normal 
Schools. The " Remarks" do not deny the necessity or the 
usefulness of such institutions, but they express a decided dis- 
sent, on the part of the " Association," from some theories of 
education adopted by several gentlemen, whose views were 
supposed to represent the general principles upon which they 
are conducted. Indeed, it is believed, that the Masters are 
decidedly in favor of the establishment of such institutions 
throughout the Commonwealth. And, in regard to those now 
in operation, the " Remarks " say : " There is not the least 
desire to detract from the literary merits of the Normal 
Schools, nor from the high character and reputation of any of 
those gentlemen ; still, it is confidently believed, that the latter 
are laboring under several mistakes of a practical and theo- 
retical nature." And in illustration of this, we find the fol- 
lowing in the same connection : " In theorizing in matters of 
education, men always select pupils of the best minds and 
morals; and they seem to forget that the 'irksome task of 
public instruction ' is among the great mass of the popula- 
tion. A common school is often a world in miniature. 
Within the same walls there are often the children of the rich 
and the poor, the idle and the industrious, the moral and the 
immoral." Here is an honest expression of opinion in rela- 
tion to the views of certain distinguished educators ; and an 
hypothesis presented to account for what are regarded, in the 
" Remarks," as " practical mistakes." It is believed no one 
4 



26 

,can take exception to this. But this, perhaps, is not regarded 
in the " E-eply " as the most exceptionable passage in relation 
to this subject. The " Remarks " pronounce the views of those 
same gentlemen, as they are set forth in their public writings, 
to be radical ; and in respect to the schools, express the belief, 
that " too much has been claimed, in official reports, for their 
comparative success." 

Of the " comparative success " of the Normal Schools, 
your Committee do not feel competent to speak. It is 
a question which can be properly discussed only from a 
thorough acquaintance with their practical results. It is be- 
lieved, however, that the "Remarks" are not sufficiently 
guarded in their expressions, with reference to this subject. 
They present some particular cases in substantiation of opin- 
ions advanced to the discredit of the Normal Schools, which, 
from the connection, were invested with an apparent authority 
greater than they can rightfully claim, or were designed to 
convey. It is not from a few instances of the success or 
failure of those sent out from the Normal Schools, that we 
are to decide upon the general character of these institu- 
tions. Were we to do so, it is more than probable that 
we should, in the one case, overrate their success, or, in 
the other, do them injustice. It may be true, as the " Re- 
marks " aver, that too much is claimed in official reports, 
for their comparative success ; yet, we believe, that an im- 
pression stronger than was intended, is conveyed by the 
citation of those particular cases in the first article. It is 
in connection with this subject, that the allusion is made 
to the sentiments of several distinguished educators, which 
the Secretary has been pleased to denominate a " fierce onset" 
upon the gentlemen themselves. 

Your Committee feel confident that the Association of 
Masters entertained no other than sentiments of respect for 
those gentlemen, and that no unworthy construction presented 
itself to their minds, in the observations made in the first arti- 
cle upon the coincidence of their opinions. It was thought, 



27 

that sympathy for the Secretary's efforts, founded upon the 
agreement of their opinions with his own, and upon a high 
respect for his personal character, and the aim of his labors, 
had influenced some of those gentlemen in giving utterance 
to that high praise which they had bestowed upon the Normal 
Schools. But it was not intimated that there was no other 
ground for praise; only, that the medium through which those 
gentlemen viewed the success of the Normal Schools, was a 
magnifying one, and that they had consequently presented to 
the public an enlarged picture of their merits. If " qualifying 
remarks " are allowed any weight, some which have already 
been made, and others of a similar purport in the first article, 
ought surely to be regarded in forming an opinion upon the 
matter. The "Remarks" expressly say, (p. 15,) in relation to 
those gentlemen whose names are introduced : " There is not 
the least desire to detract from the high character and reputa- 
tion of any of these gentlemen." Yet the Secretary stigma- 
tizes the writer of the first section as the " maligner " and 
" asperser" of those gentlemen, and he showers down upon 
' his devoted head a perfect deluge of angry and abusive 
epithets. 

It is to be regretted, that any portion of the " Remarks " 
admits of a construction even by implication, which is disre- 
spectful or uncourteous to those, towards whom no such sen- 
timents were ever entertained by the Association of Masters. 
But it is still more to be regretted, that such unfortunate pas- 
sages should be magnified and distorted, till they present a 
hideous spectacle of malice and outrage, as untrue to the 
original, as it is blasting to the reputation of their author. 

The " Remarks," in connection with this subject, introduce 
the alleged rule of the Secretary, and quote it against himself: 
" Men are generally very willing to modify or change their 
opinions and views, while they exist in thought merely ; but 
when once formally expressed, the language chosen often be- 
comes the mould of the opinion." 

It appears from the " Reply," that the construction put 



28 

upon the quotations by the writer of the first section of 
the " Remarks," was not the one intended by the Secretary, 
that he referred to " poverty or unintelligibleness of speech," 
and not to want of principle; — though the proposition is no 
less true, in the sense adopted by that writer; for many do, 
without doubt, adhere to opinions once formally expressed, 
in contradiction of their own consciousness ; and sacrifice the 
truth to a desire for apparent consistency. But, supposing 
this latter construction to have been the true one, it does not 
seem that there was sufficient reason to quote it against the 
Secretary in that connection ; for we have no evidence that 
there was any cause for change in the opinions which he had 
previously expressed of the institution under the care of Dr. 
Howe. 

Yet, admitting all that can in justice be claimed, on the 
part of the Secretary, your Committee can discover, not a 
tithe of that imputed bitterness, not a shadow of that black 
moral turpitude, with which the " Reply " seeks to shroud 
this portion of the first article. In reading those pages of 
the Secretary's " Reply " which treat of this and one other 
subject, we can fully appreciate the truthfulness of his con- 
fession, that he is obliged, daily, to "bar the doors of my [his] 
imagination," and " drive away " " troops of rhetorical figures 
which strive for entrance." And it is difficult to resist the 
conviction, that, while writing his " Reply," — either through 
inadvertence, on his part, or an unusual struggle on theirs, 
' — his importunate besiegers must have triumphed ; and that 
the dark chambers of his imagination must have been swarm- 
ing with their ghostly " troops," angry with strife, and flushed 
with the license of victory. 

If, as the " Reply " asserts, the " Remarks " have copied all 
of " shade," in presenting the Secretary's writings to the pub- 
lic, what shall be said of that dark picture in which the limner 
has portrayed, with a master's hand, the embodiment of mal- 

* See pp. 165, 166, of the "Reply." 



29 

ice and cruelty, surrounded with the most fearful forms of moral 
depravity, and illumined only by the glare of angry conflagra- 
tions?* But it is not the design of your committee to "copy " 
the " shade " from these gloomy pictures, or hold up to view 
those fearful images which are sent forth only to relieve an 
overburdened imagination. It is sufficient to examine those 
charges of the Secretary which are brought with some show 
of reason, and to see how far the " Remarks " are censurable 
for alleged abuses. 

An important charge against the " Remarks " is that of 
"forced transposition" of several extracts from the Secretary's 
Seventh Annual Report. A transposition which he denomi- 
nates a "lying collocation." This is a grave charge and 
ought carefully to be considered. The following are the ex- 
tracts, given precisely as they are quoted in the " Remarks." 

" For the six years during which I have been honored with an ap- 
pointment to the office of Secretary of the Board of Education, I 
have spared neither labor nor expense in fulfilling not only that pro- 
vision of the law which requires that ' the secretary shall collect in- 
formation,' but also that injunction, not less important, that he shall 
' diffuse as widely as possible, throughout every part of the common- 
wealth, information of the most approved and successful methods of 
arranging the studies and conducting the education of the young.' 
For this purpose I have visited schools in most of the free States and 
in several of the slave States of the Union ; have made myself 
acquainted with the different laws relative to public instruction which 
have been enacted by the different legislatures of our country, have 
attended great numbers of educational meetings, and, as far as pos- 
sible, have read whatever has been written, whether at home or 
abroad, by persons qualified to instruct mankind on this momentous 
subject. Still, I have been oppressed with a painful consciousness of 
my inability to expound the merits of this great theme, in all their 
magnitude and variety, and have turned my eyes again and again to 
some new quarter of the horizon, in the hope that they would be 
greeted by a brighter beam of light. Under these circumstances, it 
was natural that the celebrity of institutions in foreign countries 
should attract my attention, and that I should feel an intense desii-e 
of knowing whether, in any respect, those institutions were superior 
to our own ; and, if any thing were found in them worthy of adop- 
tion, of transferring it for our improvement. 

" Accordingly, early last spring, I applied to the Board for per- 
mission to visit Europe, at my own expense, during the then ensuinp^ 



30 

season, that I might make myself personally acquainted with the 
nature and workings of their systems of public instruction, — espe- 
cially in those countries which had long enjoyed the reputation of 
standing at the head of the cause." — pp. 18, 19. 

" Among the nations of Europe, Prussia has long enjoyed the 
most distinguished reputation for the excellence of its schools. In 
reviews, in speeches, in tracts, and even in graver works devoted to 
the cause of education, its schools have been exhibited as models for 
the imitation of the rest of Christendom." — p. 21. 

" Perhaps I saw as fair a proportion of the Prussian and Saxon 
schools, as one would see of the schools in Massachusetts, who 
should visit those of Boston, Newburyport, Lexington, New Bedford, 
Worcester, Northampton and Springfield." — p. 70. 

" Actual observation alone can give any thing approaching to the 
true idea. I do not exaggerate when I say that the most active and 
lively schools I have ever seen in the United States, must be regarded 
almost as dormitories, if compared with the fervid life of the Scotch 
schools : and, by the side of theirs, our pupils would seem to be 
hybernating animals just emerging from their torpid state, and as yet 
but half conscious of the possession of life and faculties. It is cer- 
tainly within bounds to say, that there were six times as many ques- 
tions put and answers given, in the same space of time, as I ever 
heard put and given, in any school in our own country." — p. 62. 

" Nor is this all. The teacher does not stand immovably fixed to 
one spot, (I never saw a teacher in Scotland silting in a school-room,) 
nor are the bodies of the pupils mere blocks, resting motionless in 
their seats, or lolling from side to side as though life were deserting 
them." — p. 64. 

" While attending to the recitation of one, his mind is constantly 
called off", to attend to the studies and conduct of all the others. For 
this, very few teachers amongst us, have the requisite capacity ; and 
hence the idleness and the disorder that reign in so many of our 
schools, — excepting in cases where the debasing motive of fear puts 
the children in irons." — p. 84. 

" A teacher who cannot answer all the questions and solve all the 
doubts of a scholar as they arise, must assume an awful and myste- 
rious air, and must expound in oracles, which themselves need more 
explanation than the original difficulty." — p. 128. 

" Do we not need a new spirit in our community, and especially 
in our schools, which shall display only objects of virtuous ambition 
before the eyes of our emulous youth; and teach them that no height 
o{ oflScial station, nor splendor of professional renown, can equal in 



31 

the eye of heaven, and of all good men, the true glory of a life con- 
secrated to the welfare of mankind ? " — p. 83. 

" I speak of the teachers whom I saw, and with whom I had more 
or less of personal intercourse ; and, after some opportunity for the 
observation of public assemblies or bodies of men — I do not hesitate 
to say, that if those teachers were brought together, in one body, I 
believe they would form as dignified, intelligent, benevolent-looking 
a company of men as could be collected from the same amount of 
population in any country." — p. 127. 

It will be seen, from the slightest examination of these quo- 
tations, that the writer who quoted them, has fairly confessed 
the transposition, whether it be a " forced " one or a " lying " 
one ; for, at the close of each separate quotation, he has given 
the page from which it was extracted. The " Reply " says, 
that " an important fact, which would not strike the casual 
reader, is the order of their arrangement ;" and it proceeds to 
give that arrangement, as though it were not given in the 
" Remarks." Now it seems impossible, that the most " cas- 
ual " reader should fail to observe, at a glance, the transposi- 
tion of passages in the quotations ; for the numbers which 
designate the pages stand out prominent, and are nearly all 
upon the same page of the " Remarks : " and it is certainly 
improbable, that the writer of that article, had he intended 
any fraud by this transposed arrangement, — as the " Reply " 
asserts, — would have given such simple means for his own 
detection. Yet the Secretary declares, — " without this fraud- 
ulent transposition of passages, the veriest catcher at words 
could have found nothing to connect my description of the 
Boston with the Scotch schools."* It surely cannot be, that 
the writer of the first article intended to show any such con- 
nection from the transposed quotations ; for, by giving the 
different pages from which they are extracted, he has at once 
severed, in the reader's mind, all connection between the 
different passages which he has quoted. But, it will be 

* The Secretary probably intended to say, — my description of the Scotch 
with the Boston schools, — for he has not given any description of the 
Boston schools. 



'32 

inquired, — What then was the purpose of this transposition? 
"Why was not the order of the pages, from which they were 
extracted, observed in the quotations themselves ? To answer 
these questions, we have only to refer to the arrangement and 
purport of the several paragraphs, as they stand quoted in the 
" Remarks." 

The first, we find, is quoted in the order of the pages from 
which it is taken, (pp. 18, 19,) those being the first from 
which quotations are made in this connection; and it gives 
us the object of the Secretary's visit to Europe ; namely, to 
make himself personally acquainted with the systems of pub- 
lic instruction in those countries which had long enjoyed the 
reputation of standing at the head of the cause. 

The second is also quoted in the same order, (p. 21,) 
designating that country (Prussia) which had "long enjoyed 
the most distinguished reputation." 

The third quotation, — the one which the " Reply" asserts 
has been "fraudulently" transposed, — is extracted from the 
70th page, carried back over two paragraphs quoted from 
pages 62, 64, relating to Scotch schools, and placed by the 
side of that paragraph from p. 21, which designates Prussia 
as the country to which the attention of the Secretary had 
been mainly directed in his visit to Europe. But why this 
transposition ? The reason is obvious. It is because the 
purport of this paragraph, from page 70, has a direct relation 
to that from page 21 ; for, it states what proportion of the 
Prussian and Saxon schools the Secretary visited during his 
tour. Can this be called a '■'■forced transposition?''^ 

The fourth and fifth quotations are descriptive of the Scotch 
schools, and are placed together in the order of the pages, 
62, 64. The remaining paragraphs relate to the general char- 
acter of teachers, and are extracted promiscuously, without 
reference to the order of the pages. In regard to these last, it 
may be said, however, that, had the writer who quoted them 
had any desire to make a fraudulent transposition, and were 
it possible that the idea of consecutive connection could be 



33 

attached to passages plainly quoted as extracts, from different 
pages, he might easily have arranged them so as to present a 
more connected and more severe construction. 

The " Reply " avers, that the quotation from page 70 is 
placed before that from page 62, in order to make the " false 
inference in regard to the German schools (that he intended 
to compare them with the Boston schools) perform another 
false service by being extended over the Scotch." But there 
is surely no ground for such a conclusion. The " Remarks " 
infer that it was intended by the Secretary to include Boston 
in the comparison between European schools and those of 
the Commonwealth ; and doubtless it was. Indeed, he has 
given us pretty conclusive evidence on this point, in his 
" Reply." But they nowhere assert, as he intimates, that he 
intended, in any instance, to confine his comparisons exclu- 
sively to Boston. It is true, the " Remarks " infer, that the 
Secretary intended to compare the schools of Boston with 
those of Prussia and Saxony, because he mentioned Boston, 
together with other places, in explaining how fair a proportion 
of Prussian and Saxon schools he visited. The inference 
may have been incorrect ; but the fact, that the paragraph from 
page 70 is placed before that from page 62, does not, in any 
way, assist in drawing that inference ; nor is the inference, 
for that reason, " extended over the Scotch schools," as the 
" Reply " asserts. Yet the Secretary calls it a " lying colloca- 
tion," and he pours out a torrent of the most bitter and terri- 
ble invective against the writer of the first section. Witness 
the unparalleled abuse which he heaps upon him : 

" I mean the traducer of Mr. Pierce,* who has done more for the 
cause of education than the reputed author of that section could ever 
do, though every atom in his corporiety [?] were converted into a school- 
master, and all should labor till the ' crack of doom ; ' — I mean him, 
who, not by hot impulse, but by pains-taking elaboration, could falsify 

* This charge of the Secretary is wholly unfounded, there is not a sen- 
tence in the whole of the first section of the " Remarks," which can be 
said to traduce Mr. Pierce. 

5 



34 

my language and meaning as to the teachers and schools of Massa- 
chusetts, as he has done ; — I mean him, who, after reading any part 
of my writings, on education, for a single hour, could have the 
blindness not to see, or the perversity to deny, that I was ready to 
give my heart as an offering to the cause ; — 1 mean him, who could 
cut passages from my last Report, and shuffle them together, until 
chance should turn up a lying collocation, beyond the power of his 
own stupidity to originate. Did I believe that invisible spirits were 
appointed to watch over children, and to rescue them from harm, and 
were the edifice to be burned down, where such a teacher goes daily 
' to lash and dogmatize,' I should think that some beneficent angel 
had applied the torch, to scatter the pupils beyond the reach of his 
demoralizing government." 

Were another than the dignified and distinguished Secre- 
tary to utter such bitter personal abuse as this, he would be 
condemned at once for his implacable severity. Yet the 
harmless collocation of paragraphs which we have before 
explained, constitutes the ground of one of those grave 
charges upon which he has founded his fearful denunciations. 

The truth is, no injustice was done the Secretary, in sup- 
posing that he intended to include the Boston schools with the 
others of the Commonwealth, when he spoke of " our " 
schools. But he asserts, that the Boston Masters have rep- 
resented him as aiming exclusively at them ; and he declares 
that the charge in the " Remarks " is, that, in his description 
of the Scotch schools, " he was only seeking to belabor the 
sluggishness of the Boston Grammar Schools." This impu- 
tation, he says, is a " pervading error of the work ; " " it 
discolors their arguments, and vitiates their conclusions." 

Now, the Boston Masters have not represented the Secre- 
tary as aiming exclusively at them ; nor is any such " charge " 
made in any portion of the " Remarks." Were such the 
case, it would most assuredly be unjust towards the Secre- 
tary ; for he spoke of the schools of Massachusetts, and their 
systems of instruction and discipline generally, and not 
expressly the schools of any particular town or city. Yet 
the comparisons which he made, relate no less to the Boston 
schools, than they would have done, had he spoken of them 



35 

alone ; for, whatever is affirmed of a class, which affects 
individual character, certainly relates to the individuals of 
that class. 

We may fairly decide, then, that the conclusion to which 
the writer of the first section arrived, in relation to this matter, 
was, in itself, a correct one. "Whether or not, he attached too 
much importance to the fact, that the Secretary mentioned 
Boston, in order to show the comparative proportion of Prus- 
sian and Saxon schools which he visited, is a consideration 
of little importance, for, in either event, he would have done 
him no injustice. The Secretary has here evidently found 
fault with a shadow of his own casting ; and that, too, with- 
out removing the object from which the shadow falls. Such 
fault-finding would be sufficiently harmless, were it not 
accompanied by charges of the gravest moral character, 
founded upon its supposititious constructions. But, presented 
in this aspect, by the hand of high official authority, it 
becomes a magnified evil, and inflicts a serious injury upon 
the reputation of those against whom it is directed. Were 
this controversy one of misrepresentation and personal re- 
proach, the Secretary could hardly have been more severe, or 
more consistent with his purpose. 

The next charge of the "Reply" is one of still graver 
character, if possible, inasmuch as it affects the individual 
veracity of the Masters. The following is the charge, and 
the quotation from the " Remarks," on which it was founded: 

" I come now to a point in regard to which the Thirty-one have 
done to me great injustice, but to their own consciences still greater. 
They have certified to allegations which are not true, and which, 
from the nature of the case, they could not know to be true, even if 
they had been so. Yet to these, they have given their names — 
their word and honor. In answer to their owa question, What do I 
know of their schools ? they say ; [Reply, p. 57] : ' With one voice the 
answer is, he knows comparatively nothing. It is not known to any 
of the Masters, that the Secretary has improved any opportunity 
within five years, of knowing any thing of the Boston teachers, or 
any thing of their plans, or the results of their instruction.' — (Re- 
marks, p. 23.) ' It is known by the Boston teachers, that the Hon. 



. 36 

Secretary has not, for several years, visited their schools, and that 
he knows nothing, by oiservation, to warrant his disparagement of 
them in common with others at the present time.'" — (Remarks, 
p. 25.) 

It will be seen, at once, that the period of time alluded to 
in these quotations from the " Remarks," was the five years 
preceding the publication of the Secretary's Seventh Annual 
Report.* For the whole aim of the " Remarks," in this con- 
nection, was to show the injustice of the Secretary in dis- 
paraging the Boston schools, equally with others of the 
Commonwealth, when he had not visited them, within a 
period, which extended back over a large proportion of the 
time during which he had sustained toward them the offi- 
cial relation of Secretary of the Board of Education ; and 
in which they were believed to have made no inconsiderable 
progress. It is evident, therefore, that no visits made subse- 
quent to the publication of the Secretary's Report, could afiect, 
in any way, the charge that he had, in that Report, disparaged 
schools which he had not visited. Yet the Secretary claims 
several visits to the schools, made in company with the 
Mayor, in May or June, — some four or five months after his 
Report was made to the Board ; and at a time when it was 
known by many, that some members of the committee of 
Masters, chosen to review that document, had reported to the 
" Association." 

But the " Reply " says of these statements : " It is obvi- 
ous that each of the Thirty-one must have made these 
assertions in regard to all the schools excepting his own, 
on mere hearsay testimony, — not worthy to be listened 
to for a moment in support of so grave a charge." It 
is not seen how any such conclusion can be " obvious ; " 
for there is nothing in the " Remarks " to warrant it. And 

* Though the language in the "Remarks" makes the statement refer to 
the five years preceding the publication of that document, yet this slight 
discrepancy may be accounted for from the fact that the first article was 
written not long after the appearance of the Seventh Annual Report. 



37 

besides, it is not correct ; for the inquiry in relation to this 
matter, was made at a full meeting of the " Association," 
held shortly after the publication of the Report ; and the 
" assertions" in the " Remarks " were based upon statements 
made by all the Masters individually ; a species of evidence 
which, it is believed, must be acknowledged to be of good 
authority, unless the Masters be accused of direct falsehood; 
— for their word and honor were as deeply involved in the 
original statements, as they were in giving sanction to the 
"assertions" in the "Remarks." Yet the Secretary says, 
it is " obvious " that each of the Masters must have " made 
these assertions on mere hearsay testimony," in regard to 
all the schools excepting his own. Such is the character of 
conclusions which he declares to be obvious ! If this be the 
logic which pervades other portions of his " Reply," we may 
readily account for many of its conclusions, otherwise unac- 
countable. 

To set this matter wholly at rest, however, your Committee 
have requested of each of the Masters, definite information 
with relation to it, given over his own signature. From 
this written testimony it appears, that ten of the sixteen 
schools under their instruction, were never visited, by the 
Secretary, at any time within the period mentioned in 
the "Remarks." At the other schools, it seems, he had 
called ; and for what purposes ! He called at two schools, 
after the exercises were completed; and, in one instance, 
'■^ after the school ivas dismissed, — to make some inquiries 
respecting the construction of the school-rooms J^ Once he 
called " to examine a record-hook, and remained about ten 
minutes;" again, to witness the operation of a ^'■map-ex- 
hibitor.''^ At another school he called for the purpose of 
listening to a singing exercise, though he was disappointed 
by the absence of the music teacher. Once, " he ivas seen 
in a crowd^^ on the occasion of an annual exhibition ; and 
once, by invitation, he was present, and " made a speech " 
at " the dedication of a school-house.''^ These visits, to- 



38 

gether with those which he claims to have made, after 
the publication of his Report, will probably make up 
the number which he " distinctly calls to mind." In those 
visits made during the five years preceding the publica- 
tion of his Report, we do not learn that the Secretary ex- 
pressed any desire to witness the exercises of the pupils ; 
or that he sought to converse with the teachers upon the 
modes of instruction and discipline, either to give or to re- 
ceive information. 

No; his object was, to examine record-books s-nd map- 
exhibitors, — not the schools. Why should they be exam- 
ined? They were managed by "incompetent teachers;" 
they were conducted on wrong principles. Why should he 
seek farther acquaintance with them, when he was convinced 
of this, and had commenced a glorious reform ? Why 
should he look back upon our gloomy schools, who was look- 
ing forward into " the clear vista " of that happy future, in 
whose "celestial light" he beheld the fulfilment of "pro- 
phecy," and the realization of hope? Why should he grope 
amid our " frozen midnight," whose fiar-seeing eye was feast- 
ing on the glories of that morning which was to be ushered 
in by the " heralds of universal peace ; " and whose " serener 
sky," no longer spanned by the bow of promise, would 
smile on the fruition of all that is blessed and happy. No ! 
to look back upon us were madness. The "hideous 
spectacle" would "joro/awe" "the hallowed vision" of his 
imagination. He did not even take us kindly by the hand, 
and seek to lead us up to that high mount, whence he 
had beheld the bright prospect of the future. He gave 
us no kind word of encouragement, to cheer us in our 
lonely way ; but left us, weary and disconsolate, to toil on 
amid darkness, and to groan under the weight of that 
bondage, from which there was no deliverance. What 
though, from his lofty eminence, he pointed, with the tri- 
umph of discovery, to the land of promise ; it was to the 
children of a happier generation than ours ; before us there 



39 

rolled an impassable Jordan, and we were to linger forever 
in the wilderness of "ignorance." But it was our fate; 
the bright star which was to him the sign of promise, 
had not presided over our destiny. True, he kindly pro- 
claimed to the world, that it was no "fault" of ours; that it 
was the inevitable dispensation of "necessity," and that we 
ought not to be "blamed." It was very kind of him to 
speak so well of us ; but, like the pity of the world, his was 
a kindness which did not relieve. Yet, for all this, we ought 
not, perhaps, to reproach the Hon. Secretary. It seems to 
have been his peculiar mission to preach a crusade on the 
subject of education ; and he has fulfilled it most devotedly. 
We will here give him the credit which he can rightfully 
claim ; — in arousing the attention of the people to the sub- 
ject of education none could have labored more earnestly, 
few so successfully. 

We regret to refer to this subject again, and should not 
have done so, had not the Secretary brought such severe and 
unqualified charges against the Masters for their assertions in 
regard to his ignorance of the results of their instruction.* 
But were not the Masters correct in their assertions? The 
Secretary says no ; and declares in his " Reply," that he 
distinctly calls to mind " a dozen visits " to the Grammar 
Schools, within five years. Some account of those visits we 
have already given, — mere calls at the school-houses, (calls 
such as are admitted in the " Remarks," p. 25,-\) for Xhe pro- 
fessed purpose of examining some of the external appliances 
of our schools — such as school-rooms, map- exhibitors, &c. 

* Here, let it be understood, that we have never attached blame to the 
Secretary for not visiting our schools, — but only for comparing them with 
those which he had visited abroad, when he was wholly unacquainted with 
their character. 

•f " Should Mr. Mann say that a few visits to the school-houses, soon after 
his original appointment as Secretary, and, perhaps, an occasional one since, 
were sufficient upon which to predicate his remarks, every experienced 
teacher will dissent from all decisions founded on such testimony." — 
Remarks, p. 25. 



40 

Such, then, is the character of the Secretary's examinations 
of schools. No wonder that he was delighted with what, to 
him, was the novel contrivance of the pedal keys on the 
organs in Germany. No wonder that he represented the 
modes of instruction which he witnessed abroad, as peculiar 
to foreign institutions, if such be a fair example of the thor- 
oughness of his investigations. Yet, those pedal keys and 
that " mode of playing on the organ," which the Secretary 
declared to be " very unusual in America," are, after all, very 
common in the city of Boston; yes, and some of those modes 
of instruction which he praised as peculiar, had been pursued 
in some of the Boston schools for three or four years^ at the 
time his Seventh Annual Report was published I Yet the 
Secretary claims to have known the character of the schools. 
He says : " The Hawes School, under Mr. Harrington, and 
the Eliot School, under Mr. Tower, being schools of a high 
reputation, I repeatedly visited." Now, Mr. Harrington left 
the Hawes School about five years before the appearance of 
the Secretary's Report ; and Mr. Tower resigned his office 
between two and three years previous to the same date. 
There are two years and some months, then, at the beginning 
of \\\e five years, in which the Secretary might have visited the 
school under Mr. Tower ; and though we have pretty con- 
clusive evidence, from a teacher who has been for seven years 
in that department of the school over which Mr. Tower 
presided, that the Secretary's visits must have been out of 
school hours, yet, as we have not the testimony of the gen- 
tleman himself, we will make no positive assertions with 
regard to the subject. We can only say ; it is to be regretted 
that the Secretary's unfavorable impressions of our schools 
should have been received from those under the charge of 
distinguished teachers, and that upon them, not now members 
of the " Association," should rest the burden of the Secre- 
tary's ungrateful comparisons. 

But supposing we admit, that the Secretary's calls at the 
school-houses, were " visits" to the schools, the " Association " 



41 

may still charge him with having disparaged schools, with the 
operation of which he was almost entirely unacquainted. 
There are some facts which will fully substantiate this posi- 
tion. On pages 113, 114, of his Seventh Annual Report, the 
Secretary gives a very minute account of the Prussian 
instructor's method of teaching geography. He says : " I 
found geography taught almost wholly from large maps 
suspended against the walls, and by delineations on the 
black-board ; " and he describes in glowing language one 
lesson which, he says, was signalized for its " rapidity and 
effect." In this lesson, it seems, the teacher projected upon 
the black-board, a map of Germany, " with its mountains, 
principal rivers, and cities," the pupils describing his work as 
he proceeded, and afterwards giving some account of the 
soil, climate, productions, &c. The lesson, as presented in 
the Report, was certainly a fine one, but a method of teach- 
ing geography, very nearly resembling that, was pursued by 
some of "oMr" instructors two years before the appearance 
of that Report. Had the Secretary visited their schools, he 
would have found geography taught from "large maps sus- 
pended against the walls," and from " delineations upon the 
black-board," in a manner very similar to that which he 
describes. 

The mode of teaching was as follows : — The pupils 
were required to construct, out of school, maps of the dif- 
erent countries embraced in their course of study, as ac- 
curately and minutely as possible. At their recitations, in 
addition to the correction of their work, they were required 
to construct upon the black-board, different portions of the 
outlines of those maps ; one defining the boundaries of a 
country ; another, shading its mountains or tracing its rivers ; 
a third, locating its cities and principal towns ; and a fourth, 
pointing out its facilities for commerce, or giving some of the 
details of its civil and physical geography. 

This method of instruction may not be quite as interesting 
to the spectator as that of the Prussian instructor, yet we 
6 



42 

believe it to be equally thorough, and equally deserving of 
credit. 

Again, the Secretary says, " great attention is paid to 
Grammar, or, as it is usually called in the ' Plan of Studies,'' 
the German language. But I heard very little of the ding- 
dong and recitative of gender, number, and case ; of govern- 
ment and agreement, which make up so great a portion of 
the grammatical exercises in our schools;" — and to show 
the thoroughness with which the Prussian instrvictors teach, 
he quotes from the Report of Professor Stowe, the following 
method of illustrating the different parts of speech : 

" The first object is to illustrate the different parts of speech, such 
as the noun, verb, adjective, adverb ; and this is done by engaging 
the pupil in conversation, and leading him to form sentences in 
whicli the particular part of speech to be learned shall be the most 
important word, and directing his attention to the nature and use of 
the word, in the place where he uses it. For example, let us sup- 
pose the nature and use of the adverb is to be taught; the teacher 
writes upon the black-board the words here, there, near, &c. He 
then says, 'Children, we are all together in this room, by which of 
the words on the black-board can you express this? ' Children, — 
'We are all Aere.' Teacher, — 'Now look out of the window and 
see the church ; what can you say of the church with the second 
word on the black-board?' Children,^'- The church is there.'' 
Teacher, — 'The distance between us and the church is not great; 
how will you express this by a word on the black-board ?' Chil- 
dren^ — ' The church \snear.'' The fact that these different words 
express the same sort of relations is then explained, and accord- 
ingly, that they belong to the same class, or are the same part of 
speech. The variations of these words are next explained. 'Chil- 
dren, you say the church is near, but there is a shop between us and 
the church; what will you say of the shop?' Children, — 'The 
shop is nearer.'' Teacher, — ' But there's a fence between us and 
the shop. Now when you think of the distance between us, the 
shop and the fence, what will you say of the fence?' Children, — 
' The fence is nearest.'' So of other adverbs. The lark sings well. 
Compare the singing of the lark with that of the canary-bird. 
Compare the singing of the nightingale with that of the canary- 
bird." 

This method of teaching the simple elements of grammar, 
is at once thorough and interesting, but the credit of it does 
not belong solely to the Prussian instructor; for the same 



43 

method was pursued by some of the public school teachers 
of Boston before the publication of the Secretary's Sixth 
Annual Report. And they illustrated, not only "the parts of 
speech," and all the different relations of words in different 
constructions of language, involving the variations of number 
and case, of degrees of comparison, of mode and tense, &c., 
but, also, the mutual dependences of words and parts of 
sentences, of subject and predicate, with all their varied con- 
nections, and complications of qualifying clauses ; in fine, 
all that constitutes the synthesis and analysis of grammatical 
construction. All this was done, by teaching the pupil to 
construct sentences involving these different forms and rela- 
tions, and by giving them sufficient of the "ding-dong" of 
scientific drilling to enable them to express their ideas in 
technical language. 

On pp. 102, 103, of the Report, in connection with some 
other modes of imparting mathematical instruction which we 
do not place in the highest rank, we find the following excel- 
lent methods of teaching multiplication and division. 

" When the pupils were a little further advanced, I usually heard 
lessons recited in this way : Suppose 4321 are to be muUipled by 25.* 
The pupil says, five times one are five ones, and he sets down 5 in 
the unit's place ; five times two tens, — or twenty ones, — are a hun- 
dred, and sets down a cipher in the ten's place ; five times three hun- 
dred are one thousand and five hundred, and one hundred to be 
carried make one thousand six hundred, and sets down a 6 in the 
hundred's place : five times four thousand are twenty thousand and 
one thousand to be carried make twenty-one thousand. The next 
figure in the multiplier is then taken, — twenty times one are twenty, 
and a 2 is set down in the ten's place ; twenty times two tens are 
four hundred, and a 4 is set down in the hundred's place ; twenty 
times three hundred are six thousand, and a 6 is set down in the 
thousand's place ; twenty times four thousand are eighty thousand, 

* Thus. 4321 
25 



2] 605 
8642 

108025 



44 

and an 8 is set down in the ten thousand's place. Then come the 

additions to get the product. Five ones are five, tw^o tens are 
twenty, and these figures are respectively set down ; four hundred 
and six hundred make a thousand, and a cipher is set down in the 
hundred's place ; one thousand to be carried to six thousand makes 
seven thousand, and one thousand more makes eight thousand, and 
an 8 is set down in the thousand's place ; eighty thousand and 
twenty thousand make one hundred thousand, and a cipher is set 
down in the ten thousand's place, and a 1 in the hundred thousand's 
place. It is easy to see that where the multiplier and multiplicand 
are large, this process soon passes beyond mere child's play. 

" So in division. If 32756 are to be divided by 75, the pupil says, 
how many hundred times are seventy-five,' — or seventy-five ones, — 
contained in thirty-two thousand and seven hundred, — or in thirty- 
two thousand and seven hundred ones ; — four hundred times, — and 
he sets down a 4 in the hundred's place in the quotient ; then the 
divisor seventy-five is multiplied (as before,) by the four hundred, 
and the product is set down under the first three figures of the divi- 
dend, and there are two thousand and seven hundred remaining. 
This remainder is set down in the next line, because seventy-five is 
not contained in two thousand seven hundred any number of hundred 
times. And so of the residue of the process." 

Now, there are gentlemen, some of whom are at present 
members of the school committee, and some who have been 
members of that body, who can testify that they have wit- 
nessed, in examinations of the Boston schools, methods of 
teaching multiplication and division, precisely like those 
above described. 

Had the Secretary known these facts, and had he visited the 
schools in which the above-described methods of leaching 
geography, grammar, and arithmetic, were pursued, he might 
have anticipated his Seventh Annual Report in much of the 
practical information relating to these subjects. Yet, through 
ignorance of these facts, he intimates, in his " Reply," that 
we were seeking to " becloud " the merits of the Prussian 
teachers ; and, because the " Remarks " criticise his description 
of some of the peculiar habits of those teachers, he seems to 
think that we intended to make an unqualified attack upon 
the whole system of Prussian instruction. 

The above statements, in connection with the preceding 
testimony, will show, conclusively, how little information 



45 

the Secretary has obtained during the last few years, of the 
modes of instruction in the Boston schools. Yet, because 
the " Association " asserted that he had not sought to make 
himself acquainted with them, he takes great offence at , 
it, and declares that he " distinctly calls to mind a dozen 
visits to the Boston Grammar Schools within the last five 
years." 

In addition to the facts, that several of those "visits" 
were made when the schools were not in session, and that 
nearly all of them were for other purposes than to witness 
the exercises of the schools, — there is still another circum- 
stance which will fairly show how much credit the Secretary 
can claim for them. According to the best information that 
we can obtain with regard to those " visits," or calls, — made 
within the " five years " above referred to, — they would aver- 
age about fifteen minutes each ; and allowing them to have 
been twelve — a number which we think greater than the 
Secretary can claim within that period — they would make, 
in all, three hours in five years, or, thirty-six minutes in each 
year devoted to visiting the Boston Grammar Schools, or 
school-houses. Reckoning the schools as sixteen, and the 
departments as thirty-two, in number, this would give about 
two minutes to a school, or one minute to a department in 
each year. With these facts before him, he turns upon the 
" Association," and, with all the confidence of an " injured 
but an innocent man," thus coolly closes up his replication 
to their charge : " To save my own reputation, thus wantonly 
assailed, I must be pardoned for making those disclosures 
which otherwise would never have been mentioned." 

"Wonderful " disclosures ! " about three hours in five years 
devoted to visiting the Boston Grammar Schools ! 

The Secretary says of the "Association," — "With what 
levity do these men make assertions!" We cannot adopt 
the same language, but we may say with far greater per- 
tinency. With what gravity does the Secretary make dis- 
closures! They afford one of the richest combinations of 



46 

the graviter in modo with the leviter in re, — that we have 
ever witnessed. Yet, for the Masters' statements with refer- 
ence to this subject, he has charged them with wronging their 
own consciences, with certifying to false allegations, and with 
the violation of their word and honor. 

What a catalogue of charges! Charges weighty enough, 
were they true, to sink the reputation of any man, or set 
of men, however high their station ; charges dark enough 
to obscure the fairest character, and to draw the gloomy 
veil of odium over the most praiseworthy labors. No won- 
der that those who have taken the " Reply " as their 
authority, should have believed the " Remarks " to be a 
" malignant attack upon the Secretary." No wonder that the 
public journals should have declared them to be " founded 
on malice and supported by falsehood." There is ground for 
all this, and more, in those accusations alone which the Sec- 
retary heaps upon the Masters, in the single paragraph with 
which he introduces this subject. But your Committee will 
not say, as he does, that he has " wantonly assailed " the 
Masters; for it is more charitable to suppose, that, led away 
by strong personal feeling, and the desire to place them wholly 
in the wrong, he did not fully apprehend the injustice which 
he was doing to them. 

But one charge still remains to be answered. The " Re- 
marks " say, p. 26 : " It is not known to the teachers of 
music, in the Boston schools, that Mr. Mann was ever present 
to hear the singing exercises in a half-hour's lesson in those 
schools." To which the Secretary replies : 

" It certainly is known to me, that I have heard with delight, the 
' singing exercises ' of an entire lesson ; and I was told by Mr. 
Mason at that time, — for which I have often since quoted his 
authority, — that if early and proper means were taken to teach chil- 
dren to sing, there would be as few who could not sing, as there are 
now who cannot speak." — Reply, p. 59. 

We rejoin, that the assertion in the " Remarks " rests ulti- 
mately upon the authority of the music teachers, from whom 



47 

the information was originally received ; and we still have 
the authority of those teachers for reiterating the assertion, 
that the Secretary did not witness the entire exercises of a 
half-hour's lesson. The original assertion in the " Remarks " 
is then strictly true. It was never denied that Mr. Mann 
had been present at a music lesson, only that he had ever 
witnessed the entire exercises of a lesson. Yet he declares, 
that it is known to him, that he witnessed the exercises of an 
entire lesson; and, hence, he says, speaking of the assertion, 
"an absolute untruth." 

The Secretary repeatedly accuses the " Association " of 
untruth in this connection ; but there is one thrust among 
these character-stabbing charges, which is the less excusable 
that it is not relevant to the subject: and has a signifi- 
cance as false as it is irrelevant. After declaring, in answer 
to the assertion of the Masters, that the Secretary had not, 
"for several years visited their schools," — that he had 
made visits to two of those schools in May or June, he 
triumphantly exclaims : "Is this the sacred regard for truth, 
which teachers should inculcate upon pupils, and of which 
they themselves should be a living example? " 

Here is, apparently, an attempt to strike at the character 
of the Teachers, as moral guides of the young, and to 
brand them with the withering stigma of falsehood ; an 
attempt, were it successful, that would at once blast their 
reputation, and destroy their usefulness. But your Commit- 
tee will put no positive construction upon this unhappy para- 
graph. They leave it to the decision of that charity which 
seeketh for good rather than evil. 

This, however, is not the only shaft aimed at the professional 
reputation of the teachers. The Secretary has quoted, in his 
"Reply," extracts from a Report drawn up by Rev. Mr. Shack- 
ford, chairman of a committee chosen to make the annual 
examination of the grammar departments, for the year 1842, 
professedly for the purpose of proving, that he had the means 
of disparaging the Boston schools, had he been hostile to 



48 

them, " without crossing the German or the Atlantic Ocean 
in quest of them." These, it is true, are disparaging to the 
schools. The gentleman who drew up that Report seems to 
have been dissatisfied with the results of the teachers' labors. 
He avers that " too much reliance is placed upon going 
through the mere routine of studies and books, and giving to 
the scholars only that which is laid down, and absolutely 
required." He intimates, that the teachers did not seem to 
impart to their pupils sufficient "general knowledge;" and 
complains that evidence was not given of " so much of this 
general influence^ and this attempt to add to the stores of 
general information, and open fresh avenues to instruction," 
as was desirable. Indeed, he seems to have found fault with 
the instruction generally, because it was confined to "the pre- 
scribed track," and did not go beyond it. There are some 
few exceptions, it is true, and the writer of the report himself 
says : " They [the committee] would not be understood to 
assert, that these high characteristics are altogether wanting, or 
to bring a sweeping charge against all of our teachers." And 
he further acknowledges, that the immense importance of the 
considerations advanced, induced him " to speak unquali- 
fiedly." Yet the report, after all, was a severe one ; and, in 
the main, speaks disparagingly of the schools. How far its 
severity may be accounted for from the fact, that the gen- 
tleman who drew it up had been but recently elected a 
member of the Board of School Committee, and was not 
fully acquainted with the disadvantages under which the 
teachers labored, may be a question. Or, to come still 
nearer to the point, — a more important question is, how 
far the allegations were just toward all the schools. For, 
according to information which your Committee have re- 
ceived with regard to that " annual examination," the gen- 
tleman who drew up the report, had not examined, or even 
visited, some of the schools, which were most favorably 
organized, and which had sustained the highest reputation. 
These, with the three schools pronounced unexceptionable in 



49 

the report, m-ay be said to form an important exception to 
the general application of those strictures on the schools, 
then only fifteen in number. The importance of this latter 
consideration will be seen at once ; for, to represent any 
system of instruction fairly, we should present its operation 
under favorable circumstances. Yet, the report seems to 
have been drawn up with ability, and contains some true 
criticisms, without doubt. There are sorfle points in which 
the instruction in all schools, arranged as most of the 
Boston schools were at that time, (1842.) must always 
fall below the highest rank. "Where from four to six hun- 
dred children — a large majority of whom are under twelve 
years of age — are crowded into the same school, provided 
with only two apartments, making from two hundred to 
three hundred to an apartment, — oftentimes more than can 
be comfortably seated, and where three or four teachers are 
constantly employed, in conducting, at the same time, the 
recitations of large classes, it is impossible to make that pro- 
gress which is desirable^ and whibh might be made under 
more favorable circumstances. 

But whether that report be a just one, in view of the cir- 
cumstances, or not, there are some facts worthy of notice 
which relate to the same subject — the character of the 
instruction in the Boston schools. This unfavorable report 
referred to one department of the schools only — the grammar 
department. The report made by the committee chosen to 
examine the mathematical department, (which, by the way, 
the Secretary has forgotten to mention in his " Reply,") was 
commendatory of the instruction in that department. More- 
over, the reports of the fifteen sub-committees — several of 
which were drawn up by some of the ripest scholars of our 
city — made to the Board at the same time, were, most of 
them, favorable to the character of both departments. It will 
be said, perhaps, that these were the quarterly reports. 
They were, it is true ; but the examinations upon which they 
are founded, are generally much more thorough than those 
7 



50 

from which the annual reports are made. Besides, it is 
true, also, that, with this exception, the annual reports, for 
the last five or six years, have been, in the main, commenda- 
tory ; and some of them have been highly so. In the report 
of the annual Committee appointed to examine the grammar 
department of the schools, for the year 1844, we find the fol- 
lowing : " The previous impressions which your Committee 
had received of the flourishing state of our public Grammar 
Schools, have been abundantly confirmed. They have had 
great satisfaction in becoming acquainted with the grammar 
masters of these schools, and are sure that a more efficient 
body of instructers will rarely be met with in any town or 
city. The modes of instruction, and the talents of instruct- 
ers, which have been so highly praised as distinguishing the 
common schools of Prussia and Scotland, your Committee 
believe, do not surpass that which has come under their 
observation in the schools of Boston." 

Indeed, there is one palliating clause, even in that annual 
report, by Mr. Shackford, which, by some strange chance, 
must have escaped the Secretary's observation. It is the 
following : " There seems to be good order, and a general 
decorum is observable, which, considering the number of 
pupils, the character of many of them, and the general in- 
fluences which they are elsewhere under, is truly worthy of 
commendation," 

Before leaving this subject, we cannot but express our 
regret, that the Secretary of the Board of Education should 
have sent forth to the public, in a document designed for 
extensive circulation, the most unfavorable portions of an 
unfavorable report, without warning the reader against re- 
ceiving them as a fair exposition of the success of those 
schools, and of the merits of their teachers. Had the Sec- 
retary employed such "means" to disparage the Boston 
schools, before his visit to Europe, as he says he might 
have done, there would have been little doubt as to the 
motive which influenced him. 



51 

Your Committee have, thus far, selected what seemed to 
them the most important points in the first section of the 
^' Reply ; " and though there are many others still deserving 
attention, the desire to abridge a controversy which has 
assumed a form as foreign to the intentions of the " Associa- 
tion " as it is ungrateful to their feelings, is a sufficient reason 
for passing them by unnoticed. 

It is not deemed expedient to introduce into this report, 
any notice of those sections of the "Reply," which are 
devoted to the last three articles of the " Remarks." If any 
defence of those articles be required, to correct the misrep- 
resentations of the " Reply," it can be made much more 
appropriately by the individual writers than by others ; for, 
those articles being arguments on educational questions, they 
can be more easily explained and illustrated, and hence, more 
readily defended, by their respective authors. But with re- 
gard to the principles therein advocated, your Committee feel 
no hesitation in re-affirming, in behalf of the " Association," 
an entire and unshaken belief in their soundness ; and their 
,adaptness, in their proper relations, to the true development 
of mind, and to the maintenance of a correct discipline. 

Passing over those sections, we come now to the epi- 
logue of this wonderful " Reply," in which the Secretary 
reviews with a serene complacency the character of his 
work. Listen to his self-satisfied conclusion : " I have re- 
plied to the principal allegations of the Thirty-one. Con- 
sidering their wanton and unparalleled provocations, I have 
done it with a forbearance that belongs to my own lenity 
rather than to their demerits." 

Is it possible that the " Reply" represents the lenity of the 
Secretary's nature ? Is his lenity of such an anomalous spe- 
cies that gross personal ridicule, and fierce, uncompromising 
denunciation are its legitimate offspring? If so, then the " milk 
of human kindness" which flows in his breast and warms his 
heart, must be a liquid fire, scorching and withering those social 
feelings which it was designed to nourish and refresh. But 



52 

we will not, we cannot, believe it. He has deceived himself; 
— the " Reply " springs from the stormy impulse of excited 
feeling, and riot from the calm action of his better nature. Yes, 
and it does him greater injustice, and belies him more, than 
could a thousand antagonists ; for it is a virtual disclaimer of 
some of his most cherished doctrines ; it contradicts many of 
his own professions, and contravenes his avowed principles. 
By this we do not refer to the direct expression of sentiment, 
but to its general character. Its spirit Soes not consist with his 
philosophy, nor does its example tally with the precepts of his 
teachings. 

But again, after the full exercise of his forbearing' " lenity" 
the Secretary says he desires to be at peace with the " Asso- 
ciation," and to co-operate with thenij while their present 
relations exist ; arid refers them to two hamlets on the skirts 
of Etna, whose infatuated inhabitants, while laboring in a 
common cause, for their common safety, fell " into a quarrel," 
and instead of protecting, sought to destroy £ach other. Now 
the " Association " never designed to make war upon the 
Secretary; they never sought "to quarrel" with him; they 
would most gladly unite their efforts with his own, to ad- 
vance the cause of education ; but they do not feel, that in 
order to do so, they are called on to sacrijfice their honest 
opinions. To labor most successfully, they must carry their 
faith into their practice ; and if the two cannot be co-extensive, 
they should at least be consistent. They are surely justified 
in being governed by their own educational opinions, and in 
defending them, also, against any attack which would be 
likely to bring them into disrepute. They do not, by any 
means, deprecate a fair discussion of questions relating to 
their educational principles ; on the other hand, they desire it. 
It was for the purpose of awakening discussion upon ques- 
tions relating to those principles, that the " Association " gave 
publicity to the " Remarks ; " and it is to be deeply regretted 
that the attention of the parties interested should have been 
withdrawn from the consideration of the important interests 



53 . 

therein involved, to the pursuit of a controversy which seems 
to be personal in its aim, and fruitless of good results. 

To conclude : the Secretary says, " if they [the ' Associa- 
tion '] are moved to a rejoinder, I shall answer it or pass it 
by, as my own judgment, enlightened by the counsels of my 
friends, shall dictate." 

They have been " moved to a Rejoinder." They have 
been moved to it, by a sense of the wrong done to them in 
the Secretary's " Reply ; " by a desire to correct the false im- 
pressions which it conveys of their motives and their senti- 
ments. They have been moved to it by a love of truth, and 
by that feeling of self-respect, which prompts every honest 
man to repel calumny and injustice. Toward the Secretary 
they have not cherished, nor do they now cherish, feelings of 
personal hostility. For the good he has done, none shall ren- 
der a more willing acknowledgment ; to the good he may do 
none shall bid him God speed with a more earnest sincerity. 



The foregoing Report is published by order of the Asso- 
ciation, with the sanction of all who were members at the 
time of the publication of the " Remarks," excepting Mr. 
"William J. Adams, who, it will be remembered, has publicly 
withdrawn from the controversy, and, Mr. Barnum Field, 
whose position is defined in the following note : 

Gentlemen of the Association : 

Such is tlie attitude which the Secretary of the Board of Educa- 
tion has seen fit to assume towards me, individually, in his "Reply" 
to the " Remarks," that I cannot, in justice to myself, unite with you 
in the rejoinder which you are about to make. I fully agree with 
you, that a rejoinder is necessary on the part of the Association, and 
I doubt not that you will do ample justice therein, to yourselves, to 
Mr. Mann, and, what is of far more consequence, to the great cause 



54 

[n which- we have so long labored, and for the further advancement 
and prosperity of which we feel so deep an interest. 

If any expressions in the first section of the " Remarks," in rela- 
tion to the statements of the President of the American Institute and 
the Director of the Blind Asylum, are regarded as unkind or disre- 
spectful, I sincerely regret it. They certainly vvere not so designed 
by me, and you well know they were not so understood by the 
Association. 

I remain yours, &c., 

BARNUM FIELD. 



NOTE. 

We have been charged in the North American Review with " ille- 
gal combination " and " conspiracy ; " and we have been told in the 
courteous language of the gentlemanly reviewer to " mind your 
[our] own business," With all due deference to the high literary 
authority of that Review, we would respectfully inquire, What is our 
business ? Is it completely embraced within the labors of the school- 
room ? Shall we be contented with the mere artificial tact and skill 
which we may acquire in applying another's principles, and in carry- 
ing out another's suggestions ? We answer. No. It is at once our 
duty and our privilege, to devote our hours of leisure to the investiga- 
tion of those principles of education, upon the right application of 
which, depend our success, our professional reputation, aye, and our 
happiness beside. If we, whose lives are thus devoted to its interests, 
have no right to speak upon the subject of public education, in the 
name of reason, who has ? Our question may not be equally perti- 
nent with his ; but, in turn, we politely ask the reviewer in the 
North American, who has made him the arbiter of our professional 
duties 7 We are schoolmasters, but we are men ; and though we 
are contented with the humble rank which the present age has 
assigned to the instructer of youth, yet we trust we shall never 
resign that manly independence, without which, under a free govern- 
ment, no man can be a useful member of society. We are public 



55 

servants, but we are nevertheless free citizens ; and as such we see 
no reason why we should be disfranchised of our rightful privi- 
leges. Has the reviewer carefully considered the relations which 
the public school teacher sustains to the community ? Does he 
know that with an organization as liberal as that of the school sys- 
tem of Massachusetts, the teacher, unless he has independence of 
thought and stability of character, must become the slave of every- 
body and the servant of nobody ? 

We suggest these questions for his candid consideration, when 
again he shall attempt to decide impartially upon the duties and 
rights of teachers ; and we advise him, also, if he would pass the 
bounds of literary criticism, in order to impeach the motives of men, 
to be as sure of the truth, as he is of his own good-will. 



REJOINDER 



SECOND SECTION OF THE ''REPLY." 



In the " Reply " of the Secretary to the second article of 
the " Remarks,'^ he charges me with " systematic misrepre- 
sentation" of his sentiments, and with "distortion" and 
" false quotation " of his writings. 

As those charges, if true, would involve a grievous moral 
wrong on my part, not only against the Secretary, but against 
the Association of Masters, who gave me an honest commis- 
sion to review, fairly and honorably, certain portions of his 
Report, I feel bound, in duty to myself, and to r.iy fellow- 
teachers, to present such fair defence, as I believe my case 
admits. In this defence, it is evident, that I must stand 
individually responsible. For, admitting the truth of those 
charges, I am no less to be censured by the " Association," 
than by the Secretary himself. The " Association " are, of 
course, responsible for the commission which they have en- 
trusted to my charge ; and they must abide by the sentiments 
which I have advanced, and they have sanctioned. But I 
alone should be held accountable for the alleged maltreatment 
of the Secretary's writings, since it was wholly foreign to 
their intention, and must have escaped their observation. 
They may perhaps be held answerable for their oversight, 
in committing an important trust to the hands of a faithless 

A. 



2 

servant ; but, morally, they are not accountable for my 
wrong-doing. To be brief; I will endeavor, in the following 
defence, to free myself from the charges brought against me 
in the second section of the Secretary's " Reply." 

The " Reply " to my article commences with the following 
graceful and generous acknowledgment. — " I am happy to 
acknowledge that the spirit of this article is very different 
from that of the first, — the acid being occasionally qualified 
by the saccharine. For instance, on its very first page, the 
following sentence begins. Speaking of me, it says : ' But 
while we respect his motives, we are by no means bound to 
extend the same courtesy to his opinions.' Now this, com- 
pared with the preceding, savors of civilization." 

I am, then, comparatively, entitled to some slight credit for 
the spirit in which my article is written. Its tone is one 
degree removed from that of utter barbarism', and its acidity 
occasionally qualified by the " saccharine " of civility ! An 
equivocal compliment, to be sure ; but still, comparatively, I 
may say, it is highly complimentary and considerate on the 
part of the Secretary. It is an admission which casts one 
gleam of sunshine over pages shrouded by the gloom of 
fault-finding and reproach; it affords one cheering ray of 
promise, to enliven the dreary prospect of the reader. I 
regret that the kindness which gave birth to this admission, 
could find no other feature in that section worthy of approval; 
but, alas, all else is, to the Secretary's mind, falsehood and 
" distortion." There is only this solitary gleam of light, 
which fades with the paragraph from which it emanates. 

Immediately following this introductory acknowledgment, 
the Secretary says : " To prepare the public mind for the 
strictures about to be made upon my Report, several of the 
early pages of this article (the second) are devoted to the 
subject of my ignorance in matters of practical education ; 
my want of caution and candor ; and to the fact, that, in 
presuming to speak of text-books and modes of instruction, 
I mistook the sphere of my labors : " and he proceeds to 



quote several passages from the early pages of my article, 
which, though they do not seem as respectful in the " Reply" 
as in the " Remarks," — being wrested from their connection, 
— do yet show the object of those pages ; namely, to pre- 
pare the public mind for the strictures about to be made upon 
the Secretary's Report. But was not that object a respectful 
one ? Hoiv did I seek to prepare the public mind ? I care- 
fully defined the object and extent of my criticisms ; I limited 
them to questions relating to some of the modes of instruc- 
tion ; showing that it was only in some of the practical 
details of education, which came directly within the province 
of the teacher, that I differed from the Secretary. 1 gave 
him credit for the " desire, faithfully, to acquit himself in the 
discharge of his responsibilities ; " I spoke of his " strenuous 
efforts " in behalf of the interests of education ; of his " zeal 
and attention toward the cause." I alluded to the '• various 
and manifold duties " set forth in his Reports ; and expressed 
the belief, that it would be impossible for any one who was 
called on to discharge such duties, to devote much time and 
attention to investigations of the details of instruction. I 
confessed the pre-eminent authority of the Secretary's opin- 
ions, and sought to mark out distinctly the boundaries of that 
field of inquiry, within which the duties of the teacher are 
embraced, lest I should seem presumptive, " in differing from 
one whose opinions " bore with them " the weight of such 
decided authority." I distinctly said, that " ignorance in 
matters of practical education," was " no reproach to the Hon. 
Secretary ; " and that it was not deemed " any ground for 
censure, that Mr. Mann was unacquainted with all the 
various questions of educational interest ; " — showing that I 
did not intend any attack upon his official character. Was 
not all this respectful ? If it was not, then has my act belied 
my intention ; for I sought to be entirely so, throughout the 
whole of my article. I spoke plainly, but I spoke honestly ; 
and I believe I am not singular in the views which I there 
advanced. 



Mr. George B. Emerson, the distinguished friend of the 
Secretary, in a pamphlet entitled " Observations ■' on the 
" Remarks," — written solely for his defence, — says, with 
reference to this same subject : " The truth is, we have not 
many thoroughly accomplished scholars, in the largest sense 
of the word. There are not many such in any country. 
Almost every science and every branch of literature, has had 
its limits so widely extended, that oftentimes a life is hardly 
sufficient for the mastery of a single one. The votaries of 
the natural sciences are finding those fields too wide; they 
are obliged to run boundaries, and confine themselves to their 
several allotments. Botany or chemistry alone, is enough of 
itself to tax the capacities of one individual. And so in the 
sciences of pure and mixed mathematics ; in the physical and 
moral sciences, and in ancient and modern learning. It is 
not, therefore, ground of a charge of incompetency against the 
Secretary, that he is not fa7niliar with all the elements even 
of those branches which ought to he taught in our common 
schools'^ This, surely, was spoken by a friend, and in the 
tones of friendship. But did I not previously say, " It is not 
deemed any ground for censure, that IVIr. Mann is unac- 
quainted with all the various questions of educational in- 
terest ? " Was not my expression as respectful as that of Mr. 
Emerson ? 

Perhaps, however, this was not the most objectionable 
portion of those " early pages,^' of which the Secretary 
speaks. I said, (p. 41,) "to teach upon the subject of pub- 
lic education, and to decide upon the comparative merits of 
different systems of instruction, or government, it is neces- 
sary to be acquainted, not only with their apparent results, 
but also with the detail of their operation, and their effect in 
forming the mental habits of the pupil ; " and in the same 
connection, I presumed to express the belief, that to pursue 
the examination of these details, would be a task requiring 
too much time and attention, to be performed by any one who 
was called on to discharge duties so manifold and various as 



those of the Secretary. This may be the objectionable 
feature of those " early pages" — that they declare a knowl- 
edge of the practical details of instruction, to be necessary to 
any one, who would teach upon that subject. 

Perhaps I am wrong in attaching so much importance to a 
knowledge of what is practical in education ; yet if so, I have 
high authority for my error. Victor Cousin, member of the 
Royal Council of Instruction in France, in his report on the 
state of public instruction in Prussia, after explaining the 
organization of the ministry of public instruction, says, with 
regard to the necessity of councillors to the minister : 

" In those departments in which the administration is, if I may so 
speak, rather material than moral, we can understand that a minister 
may do without a council ; but when his ministry is essentially 
moral like that of public instruction, which requires not only atten- 
tion to laws and regulations, but a mass of rare, various and profound 
knowledge, in which business almost always resolves itself into 
questions of science, it is evident that the minister must have the aid 
of councillors, to perpetuate the principles and the spirit which be- 
come traditionary in public bodies, and which a single variable head 
might constantly overthrow ; to make new rules or modify old ones ; 
to aid the judgment of the minister as to what establishments to 
found, or what to suppress ; above all, to guide him in the apprecia- 
tion and the choice of men, and to serve as a rampart to ward off 
solicitation and intrigue." 

Also, in the same connection : 

" Without doubt, this council must be organized in such a manner 
as to answer its end ; but this organization is very simple ; it consists 
merely in putting at the head of each important branch of the service, 
that is to say, of the kinds of knowledge taught in each stage of 
public instruction, a man known by his labors, — by a long course 
of eminent and successful teaching. Tiiis councillor, who, in my 
opinion, ought still to remain a professor or teacher, and only to 
receive a more or less considerable salary as councillor, should be 
bound to make a report of all the affairs, real and personal, belong- 
ing to his department." 

Again : 

" If the minister learns from his correspondence that things are 
not going on well in any establishment, he sends the inspector best 
qualified for the particular case. If it relates to a law faculty, he 
takes a lawyer ; if to a faculty of science, a man of science ', and so 



6 

on for all the other faculties. If it concerns a gymnasium, he 
selects a professor (teacher) of a gymnasium." 

The Secretary surely will not " flout " at the views of M. 
Cousin, nor at the embodied wisdom of the educational 
department of the Prussian government. Yet from both these 
high sources I might quote numerous passages, showing 
the importance attached by them to a practical knowledge 
of education. But there is still another idea, extraneous to 
all this, at which the Secretary was aiming in his introduc- 
tory remarks. After extracting those passages which con- 
veyed the exceptionable doctrine, that " experience," or 
" practical knowledge," was necessary to decide fairly upon 
the merits of different systems of instruction, he gives us 
the point or pith of the whole in the following sentence: 

" But the above quotations are a sufficient introduction to the 
single remark I wish to make on these pages, namely, that if I have 
not been misinformed in regard to their authorship, they Avere written 
by a young teacher, who, when he sat down to say so much about 
his own ' practical knowledge,' and ' practical ' experience ; and of 
my ' mistaken sphere of labors,' my ' ignorance in matters of practi- 
cal education,' and of my being ' led into gross error, by want of 
experience in education,' &c. &c., had been master of his school, 
only about as many months, as I had taught years, when I was at his 
age." 

Here, the Secretary has turned the tables upon me with 
wondrous dexterity. He has driven me to the disagreeable 
necessity of giving somewhat of my own personal history, or 
of admitting that he has won my position for his own 
defence. This is certainly a disagreeable dilemma; but I 
must choose the alternative most consistent wdth truth ; and 
however repugnant it may be to my feelings, I am compelled 
to compare my own " experience " in school-teaching with 
that of the Hon. Secretary. 

On pages 8, 9, of his " Reply" he says : " Early in life I 
was engaged in teaching for several years. I taught large 
district schools three successive years, and afterwards was 
tutor in college, and instructed different classes for about two 



years." This is his experience, which, if the authority of the 
triennial catalogue of Brown University can be relied on, 
must be dated back some tiventy-five years. Now, though 
it is true that I had been Master in that particular school in 
which I am now teaching, only a few months, I had been 
engaged in teaching for nearly six years, when I wrote my 
article ; and if I reckon the "district schools" which I taught 
for three " successive years," or winters, it will make one year 
MORE, or nearly seven years. For two years I had been 
principal of a large academy, from which, during the second 
year of my connection with it, there went out more than 
twenty young men to teach "district schools" in the neigh- 
boring towns, many of whose schools I visited, and all of 
whom, with but a single exception, were successful in- 
structers. I had also been a teacher between two and three 
years in the English High School of Boston, where I had 
not only the opportunity for improvement by my own experi- 
ence, but had the privilege also of witnessing the instruction 
of those who have been esteemed inferior to none as thorough 
and efficient instructers. 

I will give the Secretary full credit for his experience, and 
though I confess that I cannot understand how two years' 
tutorship in a college could have thrown much light upon 
systems of instruction adapted to our public schools; or how 
three " district schools," taught twenty-five years ago, when 
there was such a " confusion of books " for want of system, 
and such a frightful " decay and dilapidation " in the externals 
of education, could have offered much opportunity for testing 
different systems of instruction ; yet I freely admit, that some 
twenty-five years ago, he " taught as many years " as I had 
been Master in the Brimmer School, months, when I was 
appointed a member of the committee to whom was referred 
the examination of his Seventh Annual Report. 

I do not, for a moment, suppose that the Secretary intended 
to misrepresent the truth, as to the amount of my experience, 
when he made that comparison in his " Reply ; " but only 



8 

that he was not in possession of ihe truth. Indeed, he him- 
self admits that he rehed upon rumor for his facts, when he 
says, " If I am correctly informed," &c. ; admitting that there 
might be some doubt of the correctness of his information. 
The truth is, the Secretary was not " correctly informed," 
even in regard to the small matter of the " months ; " for 
" when he [I] sat down to say so much about his [my] own 
' practical knowledge ' and his [my] ' experience,' " it was 
nearly three months after my appointment on the committee^ 
and after I had been in the Brimmer School six months; a 
number double that of the years which the Secretary claims 
to have taught. This, however, is a small matter compared 
with the impression conveyed by the Secretary of my inex- 
perience in teaching. Indeed, it would be unworthy of 
notice, did it not show the danger of relying upon " mere 
hearsay testimony " for our facts. 

The " Keply " not unfrequently adopts "rumor" as its 
authority, and it contains some important mistakes arising 
therefrom. Being a " young " man, it becomes me to be 
modest in my quotations ; but I believe I shall not be ac- 
cused of presumption, if I quote to the Secretary from a 
school-boy classic, the following graphic description of Rumor's 
uncertain character : 

" Tarn ficti praviqtie tenax quam nuntia veri, 
Hebc turn multiplici populos sermone replebat; 
Gaudens, et pariter facta atque infecta canebat." 

But again ; the Secretary avers that I said much about my 
practical knowledge and my experience. Now the article 
which I wrote, was not presented to the public upon my 
authority, but upon the authority of the Association of Mas- 
ters ; it was sanctioned and published by them ; and the sen- 
timents which it contained were presented as their sentiments, 
and not as mine. The Secretary seems to understand this 
very well, whenever he wishes to reprove the " Association ;" 
for then he says, " the Thirty-one say," showing that he holds 
them accountable for the sentiments. Had my article rested 



upon my personal authority alone, I should not have pre- 
sumed to claim credit for my " practical knowledge," but 
being sanctioned by an association of teachers, many of whom 
had grown gray in the profession, it might well claim the 
authority of experience. 

So much for those early pages, whose barbarian rudeness 
is sometimes softened by slight touches of " civilization," and 
whose " acid " is occasionally qualified by the more pleasing 
" saccharine." 

I come now to the consideration of a point to which the 
Secretary has attached an importance far greater than I ever 
designed. At the commencement of some remarks question- 
ing the correctness of conclusions drawn from examinations 
so hasty as those which he professed to have made of the 
Prussian schools, I adverted to an obvious inconsistency in 
some of the data of his account. I did this, not with a desire 
to impeach his veracity, but simply to show that, in summing 
up the details of his hurried investigations, he had made 
some mistakes ; a result not at all singular, considering the 
- circumstances under which they were made. In order to do 
him ample justice, I will give his version of the matter. It 
is as follows : 

" On pp. 42-3, [' Remarks,'] a radiant witticism flashes forth ; and 
that I may avail myself of the first occasion to brighten the sombre 
hue of this discussion, I will quote it entire : 

" ' To substantiate the position we assumed in regard to the opinions 
of the Secretary, suggested in his remarks on Prussian schools, we 
invite the attention of the reader, to that page (133) of the Report, 
in which Mr. Mann makes several statements, of the truth of which, 
he says there can be no doubt. 

" ' In paragraph numbered 3 on that page, he informs us that, in 
the space of six weeks, he visited hundreds of schools, and saw tens 
of thousands of scholars. We confess we are not a little perplexed 
to understand how Mr. Mann could, in thirty-six days, have visited 
so great a number of schools ; and the problem becomes still more 
difficult of solution since, in the paragraph introductory to those 
facts, upon which he places so much emphasis, he states that he 
entered the schools before the first recitation in the morning, and 
remained until the last was completed at night. This statement of 
the Secretary, reminds us of that facetious suggestion of his, on the 



10 

57lh page of his Report, where, after lamenting the want of practical 
mathematical instruction in our own schools, he says : " If a boy 
stales that he has seen ten thousand horses, make him count ten 
thousand kernels of corn, and he will never see so many horses 
again." We think that if the Hon. Secretary should count in con- 
junction the number of days and the number of schools visited, he 
would never visit so many schools again in the same space of time.' 
— Remarks, pp. 42-3. 

" Here, at last, amid a pool of Stygian waters, incapable of 
reflecting light, one rainbow hue gleams from a bubble of purer 
element. It is with reluctance that 1 puncture this air-blown vesicle ; 
but truth dooms its collapse." — Reply, pp. 75-6. 

" Amid this pool of Stygian waters," rayless and stagnant, 
on whose dark bosom the swift hand of the Secretary has 
extinguished the last gleam of light, I am compelled to search 
for the shrunken form of a punctured and lifeless " vesicle." 
I should be in doubt, with what aids of science I might best 
proceed, whether as an anatomist or as a naturalist, or in what 
range of animal or vegetable existences, I should classify 
this defunct phenomenon, did not that ^^rut/i" which so 
conveniently doomed its " collapse," still preside over its 
manes, as a sort of g-enius loci, to guide me through the 
shades of the multiform " figures " which the Secretary's 
fancy has gathered around. Listen to its directions : 

" In the first place, however, the quotation is false. I did not say, 
' I saw tens of thousands of scholars.' My expression was conjec- 
tural, not absolute, — a matter of opinion only, not of assertion. My 
words were, ' I think I may say,' &c. (Report, p. 133.) But what 
I said qualifiedly, is stated absolutely. Wit is excellent, my young 
friend, but truth and fairness are better." — Reply, p. 76. 

"In the first place, the quotation is false ! " In the first 
place, this statement is — incorrect; for I have not only 
made no ^' false quotation,^^ but I have made no quotation. 
With what perfect blindness has the Secretary brought this 
charge against me ! Had he looked for a moment at the 
quotations which he made from my article, and which I have 
given above, he must have seen that I had not quoted from 
the Report. My language was — "In paragraph numbered 
3, he informs us, that he visited," &c. ; showing that I derived 



11 

certain information from his account. This surely cannot be 
called a " quotation.''^ But listen again to the voice of that 
^'^ truth y "My expression was conjectural, not absolute — 
a matter of opinion only, not assertion. My words were, ' I 
think I may say,' &c." 

His words were — "I think I may say," not — &c., but 
" ivithin hounds^ tens of thousands of pupils." This, certainly, 
is quite definite. "When a witness is called on to testify in 
court, and the details of his evidence do not admit of being 
reduced to an absolute certainty, this is his strongest and 
safest expression. Yet the Secretary says, " My expres- 
sion was conjecturaiy " My words were — ' I think I may 
say,' &c." ! What a significance he attaches to that little 
sign, &c.! he has placed it here instead of that which is 
decidedly the most important part of the qualifying claase. 

But let us look a little more closely into this nice distinction 
between the " conjectural " and the *' absolute." It seems that 
he separates the two parts of the sentence, with regard to the 
weight of their authority. The former part — " I saw hun- 
dreds of schools and thousands of pupils," — he considers as 
matter of unqualified assertion; while the latter part — "I 
think I may say, within bounds, tens of thousands," — -is a 
matter " of opinion only." Does the Secretary mean to con- 
vey the idea that he counted the " thousands of pupils " ? or 
that he entered into any arithmetical calculation to ascertain 
that he had seen that number ? The fact that he had visited 
schools with which thousands of scholars were connected, 
would not make it absolutely certain that he had seen thou- 
sands. Were his testimony required, on the stand, with 
regard to the number which he had absolutely seen, could he 
give more definite evidence than — " I think I may say within 
bounds?" Has he not made a distinction without a differ- 
ence ; and was not my statement correct when I said, " He 
informs us," &c. ? 

But, says the Secretary, in the generosity of his heart : 

*' Let the false statement, however, be considered as true ; and let 



the criticism be viewed in that aspect. First, as to the number of 
scholars. Suppose a foreigner whose object it was to visit our 
schools and to inquire into our systems of education, and whose only 
pride lay in his fidelity to his mission and his power of labor, should 
land at Boston. In eight days could he not see the sixteen Grammar 
Schools, with their more than seven thousand children, and also 
several Primary Schools in or near the same buildings ? In four 
days more could he not visit Roxbury, Charlestown, Salem and New- 
buryport, and see nearly three thousand children more, — equal to 
ten thousand children in twelve days ? Would not this be a prom- 
ising beginning, in the solution of that practical problem by which 
twenty thousand children are to be seen in thirty-six days." — 
Reply, p. 76. 

I have italicized a few words in this quotation, to point out 
more clearly the Secretary's idea of what the "foreigner" 
must accomplish, in order to be faithful to his mission, 
[which is, " to inquire into our systems of education,"] he 
must " see twenty thousand children I " If this be the " prob- 
lem," I yield at once. The "foreigner" might solve it in 
less than thirty-six days, by merely visiting the play-grounds 
of some two or three populous cities. Or if it be only to 
" see " those twenty thousand children in school, I will admit 
that this also might be accomplished. It was not the number 
of scholars that I sought to notice in that " radiant witticism," 
but the " hundreds of schools " visited in " six weeks." This 
will be seen upon the slightest examination of the quotation 
from my article. Indeed, I should not have noticed this point 
again, had he not studiously inverted my sentence, and 
brought this unimportant statement into the front rank of 
my offending, charging me with false quotations and with 
falsehood itself, in the very commencement of his criticism. 
From both of these charges I believe I have fairly exculpated 
myself. 

Next in the inverted order of the Secretary's strictures, 
comes the true point of those few lines upon which he has 
written such a lengthy commentary ; namely, the problem of 
the "hundreds of schools" and the "thirty-six days." I 
will give his solution of this vexed question : 



IS 

" But the place, — the locus in quo, as the lawyers say, — of our 
issue, lies in the ' north and middle of Prussia and in Saxony,' amid 
a density of population of which we have no example, and where 
all the people are gathered into towns and villages. The Franke 
Institute, at Halle, is a vast quadrangular pile, I believe four stories 
high, consisting of schoolrooms, and of rooms for the director, teach- 
ers, &c. ; and having, when 1 was there, more than twenty-five hun- 
dred pupils in its schools. Allowing fifty to a class, or school, — 
and here would be fifty schools. As each has its own room and 
teacher, I call them schools, just as we speak of a grammar, a 
writing, and a primary school, as distinct schools, though all are in 
the same building. 1 staid at the Institute between two and three 
days, going from the lowest class to the highest, hearing whole reci= 
tations, or, — where the subject and the manner were familiar to me, 
— parts of recitations, in each branch." — Reply, p. 11, 

This quotation is sufficient to show the way in which the 
Secretary seeks to substantiate the accuracy of his original 
statement. He proceeds to give an account of other and 
similar visits, but they all bear upon the same point, the 
convenient collection of many pupils into the same building ; 
or, rather, I might say, the convenient division of large 
schools into many classes. Visits to the different apartments 
-of the different classes, he calls visits to as many different 
schools. This, I am told, is regarded as a satisfactory solu- 
tion of the problem, a triumphant vindication, on the part 
of the Secretary, of his accuracy and carefulness ! It may 
be so. I will not undertake to deny it. But were I to visit 
Germany, and, having spent a day or two in passing through 
the fifty apartments of the Franke Institute, at Halle, were I to 
state, on my return, that I had visited " fifty schools," I believe 
I should convey an incorrect impression of the extent of my 
investigations. 

But the Secretary says, — "I spoke expressly of Sunday 
schools, where secular, and such religious instruction as they 
combine with secular, is given. Why restrict the ' six weeks ' 
to ' thirty-six days.' Are not 6 X 7 = 42? or is the multipli- 
cation table to be belied, to find cause of offence against 
me?" 

I acknowledge that I did not give the Secretary credit for 



14 

the full number of days ; but it was because I thought he had 
made an exception of the Sabbath, in collecting "secular" 
information, and not " to find cause of offence " against him, 
as he intimates. I knew that he spoke, in his Reports, of the 
Sunday schools, where secular instruction is given, but I did 
not for a moment suppose that he had spent all his Sabbaths 
in visiting them. I hasten to repair my error, by adding to 
those " thirty-six days," spent in visiting schools, six Sabbaths 
spent also in like manner. 

Again ; the Secretary continues : 

" But in reference to my seeing so many scholars and schools, in 
so brief a period, the 'Remarks' say, ' The problem becomes still 
more difficult of solution since, in the paragraph introductory to these 
facts, upon which he places so much emphasis, he states that he 
entered the schools before the first recitation in the morning, and 
remained until the last was completed at night.' Now, as I never 
said, or intimated that I remained in each individual school or school- 
house, all day, but only that I entered 'the schools' early and 
remained late, it would have seemed to me that I could see more 
schools, from morning till evening, than during one, two, or three 
hours of a day ; and therefore that my statement would make the 
'solution of the problem' less, instead of more 'difficult.'" — Re- 
ply, p. 79. 

He here declares that he " only " said, " I entered the 
schools early and remained late." The following is his 
language precisely as it is in his Report : 

" On reviewing a period of six weeks, the greater part of which I 
spent in visiting schools in the North and middle of Prussia and in 
Saxony, (excepting of course the time occupied in going from place 
to place,) entering the schools to hear thejirst recitation i7i the morn- 
ing, and remaining until the last was completed at night, I call to 
mind three things about which I cannot be mistaken." — Report, 
p. 132. 

I may be mistaken as to the meaning of the words " enter- 
ing and remaining," but it seems to me, the plain English of 
it is, that he remained in the schools which he entered ; and 
not that he entered one school "in the morning," and re- 
mained in twenty others " until after the last recitation at 
night." Whatever be the true construction, I may be allowed 



15 

one statement which will show how others have viewed it. 
Previous to the publication of the " Remarks," a friend of the 
Secretary, who claimed to be an interpreter of his doctrines, 
(though he may not be of his language,) referred me to that 
very passage in the Report, to show the thoroughness of his 
investigations ; saying that an entire day in a school would 
afford a fair opportunity of deciding upon the ability of its 
teacher, and for witnessing the character of his instruction 
and discipline. I referred him to the statement in paragraph 
numbered 3, as inconsistent with his view, but I obtained no 
solution of the difficulty until I read the " Reply." There I find 
the facts ; some of them are worthy of careful consideration ; 
those, for instance, relating to the Secretary's visits to the fifty 
" classes or schools," of the Franke Institute, at Halle. He 
informs us that he stayed at the Institute between two and 
three days, " going from the lowest class to the highest, and 
witnessing the exercises in all the branches." We will sup- 
pose it to have been two days and a half, or five half days; 
This would require him to have visited ten schools in each 
half day ; and supposing the school day to have been seven 
hours, it would be, upon an average, one school in every 
twenty-one minutes. " Here would be fifty schools " out of 
the " hundreds " which he claims to have visited ! 

This, then, is the solution of the problem! "What a 
solution ! What a flood of light it pours upon the pages of 
that Seventh Annual Report ! How it clears up its dark 
passages, and what weight does it not add to its manifold 
conclusions I 

After a labored demonstration of some five pages, in which 
the proposition, " I visited hundreds of schools," is the qnod 
erat demonstrandum, the Secretary says: "Had the above 
facts, in relation to the Prussian and Saxon schools, been 
familiar to the Thirty-one, I cannot think that they would 
have questioned my accuracy on this point ; and hence my 
falsity resolves itself into their ignorance." If he means by 
those " facts," the astounding information that he visited ten 



16 

schools every half day, devoting about twenty-one minutes to 
a school, I agree, — with such information before me, I should 
not have thought it necessary to question the " accuracy " of 
any thing in the Report ; the bare statement of such '•'•facts " 
would have precluded the necessity of all discussion. But if 
he refers to the fact that large numbers of pupils are collected 
in some of the Prussian schools, I can assure him that I was 
fully informed of that before I read either his " Reply " or 
Report. Other facts I had learned, too, from gentlemen who 
have resided in some of the cities of Prussia and Saxony, a 
period of time nearer to six years than to " six weeks ; " facts 
which, as they are matters of private information, I did not 
see fit to bring into a public controversy. 

But the Secretary himself does not seem quite contented 
with his argument, nor quite satisfied with the solution of that 
" problem." He does not leave the subject with the com- 
posure of a man who has finished his work to his own satis- 
faction; but rather with that irritability which arises from the 
embarrassment of failure. Not finding sufficient opportunity 
to ridicule me in the point which he was discussing, he con- 
jures up a ludicrous account of childish ignorance, in order to 
rank me with the youthful hero of his story. After relating 
the simple question of a deaf and dumb boy, at Magdeburg, 
upon the subject of geography, about which, of all subjects, 
he probably knew the least, he says : 

" Were the writer of this part of the ' Remarks,' pitted against 
that ten years' old deaf and dumb boy, on the prize-question, 
whether the latter knew more of American geography than the 
former of German schools, it would be difficult to say which party 
should bear off the medal." — Reply, p. 80. 

Verily, that must have been a vexing problem to the Sec- 
retary. Had I known that he would be so disturbed at it, I 
should never have proposed it. 

With reference to the " German schools," I confess my 
ignorance. For the last few years I have read with interest 
whatever has fallen in my way relating to them ; and I have 



17 

occasionally gleaned from the conversation of those who 
have visited them, some slight information respecting the 
details of their management ; but not a few of the accounts 
which T have read, or have heard from those who have 
seen the schools, are contradictory. By one I am told, that 
the peculiar excellence of the instruction in the Prussian 
schools, is its thoroughness ; that the pupils proceed slowly, 
but are remarkably well drilled in the studies which they 
are taught ; and that from those which they do learn, they 
learn how to acquire others. By another I am informed, that 
their superior merit is based upon the great learning of the 
teachers, — upon their ability to impart " general knowledge" 
to the pupils, to interest them in the pursuit of knowledge by 
feeding them constantly from the rich stores of their own minds, 
without subjecting them, at first, to the hardship of acquiring 
for themselves. From one I learn, that the discipline of the 
schools is of the mildest character, that the pupils are almost 
wholly governed by their affection for their teachers, and by 
their sense of duty. By others I am told, that they have 
, witnessed in the manner of some of the Prussian instructers, 
sternness and severity unequalled by any thing which they have 
ever known in the school discipline of our own country ; and 
that the system of preferments which exists in the Prussian 
schools, appeals more directly to the selfish nature of the 
pupils, than all the prizes or medals which are ever offered. 
A distinguished philosopher, who devoted much time to an 
examination of the general organization of the system, 
expresses the following opinion of the law of 1819, upon 
which it is based : 

" This law, without going into details with relation to any particu- 
lar branch, omits no topic of interest, and is the most extensive and 
complete law on primary instruction of which I have any knowl- 
edge." 

" It is impossible not to be struck with its profound wisdom. No 
inapplicable general principles, no spirit of system, no partial or 
exclusive views govern the legislator." 

" In a word, all persons or classes who have an interest in the 
subject, find their appropriate place in this organization, and concur, 
c 



18 

each in his own manner and degree, to the common end, which is, 
the civilization of the people." 

A celebrated traveller, whose notes upon the social and 
political condition of different countries of Europe are held in 
high esteem, says, with reference to the subject : 

" The Prussian educational system is admirable, — admirable as a 
machinery by which schools, schoolmasters, superintendence of them, 
checks, rewards — both for the taught and the teachers — and, in a 
word, education; that word being taken in the meaning of the means 
of conveying certain very useful acquirements to every class of soci- 
ety, and to every capacity of individuals, are diffused over the country, 
and by law brought into operation upon every human being in it." 

But, says the same writer, 

" If the ultimate object of all education and knowledge, be to raise 
man to the feeling of his own moral worih, to a sense of his respon- 
sibility to his Creator and to his conscience, for every act, to the 
dignity of a reflecting, self-guiding, virtuous, religious member of 
society, then the Prussian educational system is a failure.'''' 

With these contradictory testimonies before me, I am still 
unable to decide upon the character of the Prussian and Saxon 
schools. Such a decision is unnecessary, however, in this 
controversy, for I did not attempt, in my article, to make any 
strictures upon their systems, either of instruction or disci- 
pline, but merely upon a single characteristic of their instruc- 
tion which the Secretary represented as a peculiar excellence ; 
namely, the lecturing or oral instruction. But, had such been 
the case, the above statements would not, probably, be 
deemed any apology for my " ignorance," — for, if I rightly 
understand the matter, he brings that charge against me, not 
because I did injustice to Prussian schools, but because I did 
not know, that what he himself calls " classes" when " con- 
sidered as parts of one great establishment," might very 
properly be called " schools" when he was desirous of show- 
ing how many he had visited. 

Before leaving this subject, I will say in all sincerity, that 
had not the Secretary, in his attempted solution of the diffi- 
culty, presented the ground of complete justification of ray 
strictures upon the superficial character of his visits, I should 



19 

regret having adverted to the inconsistency of his language. 
I should do so upon general principles. I believe it to be 
wrong in the discussion of important subjects, where the only 
object is to elicit truth, to present any unimportant issue 
which may irritate an opponent, and distract his mind from 
the consideration of the true question. Such has been the 
case in this instance ; for, although several pages of the 
"Reply" are devoted to the exposition of that harmless 
"witticism," no allusion is made to the far more important 
remarks upon the impossibility of judging fairly concerning 
the merits of different systems of instruction and discipline, 
from a hasty examination of the schools in which they are 
pursued. 

The next point in my article, which the Secretary notices, 
is a criticism upon a reading lesson which he describes in liis 
Report. My only object in that criticism, as will be seen on 
referring to the " Remarks," was to notice the " oral lecture " 
which accompanied it, and to give my reasons why I did not 
esteem it to be a useful exercise to the pupils. Lest I may 
, again be charged with " systematic misrepresentation," I will 
give his strictures entire : 

" The next criticism relates to a reading lesson. To show the 
systematic misrepresentation that pervades the ' Remarks,' I will first 
give their language, and follow it with the paragraph in my Report, 
to which it refers. 

" ' He has given a description of the method of conducting a reci- 
tation of an advanced class in reading, as he witnessed it in one of 
the Prussian schools. He informs us that the teacher, in connection 
with the reading lesson, delivered " a sort of oral lecture " to his 
pupils, in which he entered, with the greatest minuteness, into an 
explanation of all the subjects alluded to in the lesson, enlarging 
upon the geographical references, instituting comparisons between 
the foreign customs alluded to and their own, and illustrating even 
the illustrations themselves, until he had consumed an entire hour 
upon six, four line verses. This method of instruction, the Secretary 
evidently refers to as a superior one, and as meeting his entire ap- 
probation. Now we beg leave to differ from the opinion of the Hon. 
Secretary, and to pronounce this method, inconsistent with the pur- 
poses of public instruction, and by no means productive of the 
highest results.' — Remarks, p. 44. 



20 

" My account is as follows : 

" ' Having given an account of the reading lesson of a primary 
class, just after they had commenced going to school, I will follow 
it with a brief account of a lesson given to a more advanced class. 
The subject was a short piece of poetry describing a hunter's life 
in Missouri. It was first read, — the reading being accompanied 
with appropriate criticisms as to pronunciation, tone, &c. It was 
then taken up verse by verse, and the pupils were required to give 
equivalent expressions in prose. The teacher then entered into an 
explanation of every part of it, in a sort of oral lecture, accompanied 
with occasional questions. This was done with the greatest minute- 
ness. Where there was a geographical reference, he entered at 
large into geography, where a reference to a foreign custom, he com- 
pared it with their customs at home ; and thus, he explained every 
part, and illustrated the illustrations themselves, until, after an entire 
hour spent upon six, four-line verses, he left them to write out the 
sentiment and the story in prose, to be produced in school the next 
morning. All this was done without the slightest break or hesitation, 
and evidently proceeded from a mind full of the subject, and having 
a ready command of all its resources.' — Report, pp. 99-100. 

" Let it be premised here, that an hour was so universally the 
period of time allotted to a recitation, wherever I went, that the reci- 
tation might commonly be referred to, as a measure of time. 

" From the language of my Report, it is obvious that this was an 
intermediate class. After speaking of a primary class, I called this 
a ' more advanced ' class. They call it ' an advanced class,' as, 
otherwise, many of their observations would have been irrelevant. 
They make me say that the teacher ' consumed an entire hour upon 
six, four line verses,' the pupils only listening. Did I not say, that 
the lesson 'was first read, — the reading being accompanied with 
appropriate criticisms as to pronunciation, tone,' &c. ? Did I not 
also say, ' It was then taken up verse by verse, and the pupils re- 
quired to give equivalent expressions in prose .'' ' All this would 
take at least half the hour, probably more, — as, in order to give the 
right ' tone,' &c., some of it must have been read several times and 
by different pupils. It was after all this that the ' oral lecture' came, 
— the only thing noticed in the ' Remarks.' " — Reply, pp. 80-81. 

I am no lawyer, and I know not that I shall be able to trace 
out the mazes of these complicated strictures ; but one thing 
I can make clear at once. He says the " oral lecture "is the 
only thing noticed in the " Remarks." I will here settle that 
point by stating that it was the only thing I intended to 
notice; the only "thing" that related to the subject I was 
discussing ; namely, the use of text-books. 



21 

This will probably free me from the charge of " systematic 
misrepresentation," as far as that charge relates to this point. 
But, in order to understand on what ground he has accused 
me of "systematic misrepresentation," I must examine the 
details of his charge- 
In the first place, he says, " Let it be premised here^ that an 
hour was so universally the period of lime allotted to a reci- 
tation, wherever I went, that the recitation might commonly be 
referred to, as a measure of time." Let it be premised here ! 
Had this information been given in this Report it would have 
been a very important item in some of his descriptions of the 
recitations which he witnessed ; and it would have assisted 
very much in explaining the meaning of language by no 
means clear in its construction. But how does this informa- 
tion, which is " Aere" given for the first time, bear upon the 
charge of " misrepresentation," which relates only to the lan- 
guage of the Report?* What part does it form in that argu- 
ment which is to convict me of such gross maltreatment of 
the Secretary's writings ? I may not, perhaps, be able to 
show how or where the links of this chain are connected, 
but the following quotation, I believe, will afford a fair 
sample of the strength of its material : " From the lan- 
guage of my Report it is obvious that this was an inter- 
mediate class. After speaking of a primary class, I called 
this ' a more advanced class,' as otherwise many of their 
observations would have been irrelevant." 

Otherwise many of their observations would have been 
irrelevant ! How, in the name of reason, did the Secretary 
draw this inference; by what rule of deductive logic has he 
wrought out this most apropos conclusion ? An " interme- 
diate class," is precisely what I understand by the language 
of the Report ; precisely what I alluded to when I spoke 
of " an advanced class." An advanced class, as I under- 
stand it, is not the highest, but one between the lowest and 
the highest classes. 

* The documents relating to this controversy were published in the fol- 
lowing order: Report — Remarks — Reply. 



22 

The remarks in my article upon the oral method of instruc- 
tion are applicable both to the intermediate and to the highest 
classes ; but if there be any difference with regard to the 
relevancy of those remarks, it is in favor of the " intermediate " 
classes, for the oral lecture would be less likely to profit them, 
than it would the highest classes of pupils whose minds are 
more mature. I will quote from my article the remarks to 
which the Secretary alludes, lest I may be charged with 
" false statement" of my own sentiments. 

" The object of the elementary instruction of our public schools, 
as we understand it, is, not alone to impart a certain amount of 
knowledge to the pupils, but to give them moreover such training, as 
shall enable them to pursue the subjects which may afterwards claim 
their attention, successfully for themselves ; to cultivate their powers 
of discrimination and reflection, that they may observe and decide 
for themselves ; in fine, to discipline and strengthen their minds, and 
prepare them, as far as is possible, for that independent action, which 
will be required of them in the discharge of the duties of life. In 
order to accomplish these purposes, we believe the following requisi- 
tions to be indispensable. First, that the mind of the pupil be taught 
to grasp the object of its pursuit, with constant and vigorous atten- 
tion ; secondly, that the mind be trained to habits of strict analysis in 
the investigation of all subjects ; and thirdly, that it be taught to 
classify and arrange properly, the subjects of its knowledge. The 
first of these requisitions is necessary, that the pupil may be able to 
master successfully, the difficulties of his studies, and to retain what 
he acquires ; the second, that he may have a definite conception of 
what he learns, and understand the various relations and dependen- 
cies of the subjects which he investigates ; and the third, that he 
may, when desirable, be able to make a practical use of his acqui- 
sitions." — Remarks^ p. 45. 

These are the " observations," many of which the Secretary 
declares to be " irrelevant " to oral instruction, as given to in- 
termediate classes ; observations made with entire reference 
to such classes, and more nearly relevant to them than to any 
other. " I mean no offence by the remark," but I am strongly 
tempted to believe that the Secretary's conclusions, are, many 
of them, the product of his imagination. 

Again : his criticism is, as it were, an interloper ; it sep- 
arates two considerations which are intimately related. Why 
this unnatural arrangement ? Perhaps the answer of this 



question, may throw some light tipon the character of the 
criticism itself. In order to assist the solution, we will sup- 
pose the intervening stricture to be omitted. The Secretary's 
language would then read thus : " Let it be premised here, 
that an hour was so universally the period of time allotted 
to a recitation, wherever I went, that it might commonly 
be referred to as a measure of time." " They make me say 
that the teacher ' consumed an entire hour upon six, four- 
line verses,' the pupils only listening. Did I not say that 
the lesson ' was first read, the reading being accompan- 
ied with appropriate criticisms as to pronunciation, tone, 
&c. ? ' Did I not also say, ' It was then taken up, verse by 
verse, and the pupils required to give equivalent expressions in 
prose ? ' All this would take at least half the hour, probably 
more." 

Were the Secretary's remarks upon this subject to read 
thus continuously, the injustice of his fault-finding would be 
seen at once ; for, since the account in his Report clearly con- 
veys the impression that the teacher did consume an entire 
"hour, and since we have no information until we come to the 
" Reply," that the recitation might not have continued an 
hour and a half, or more, the blame which he attaches to me 
for making the teacher consume " the hour," when the whole 
recitation continued only that length of time, and the pupils 
occupied " at least half" of it, would be entirely ex post 
facto; inasmuch as the turning-point of the charge rests upon 
a fact which was not known to me when I wrote my article. 
The separation of the premises from the conclusion, by the 
criticism above referred to, renders the connection less obvious 
to the mind of the reader, and hence tends to remove the ob- 
jection which he would at once make were it otherwise ; but 
it does not by any means destroy the force which the conclu- 
sion ultimately receives from the premised fact. 

To set this matter in still clearer light, I will refer again to that 
paragraph in which he brings to bear X\\e point of his argument 
against my representations of the case. After demanding 



24 

with much earnestness, " Did I not say that the lesson was 
first read ? " &c. ; did I not also say, " It was then taken up 
verse by verse, and the pupils required to give equivalent ex- 
pressions in prose," — as though these facts had been denied, 
— he says, " all this would take at least half the hour, probably 
more." 

Now I never denied that the Secretary said " the lesson 
was first read," or that the pupils were properly drilled ; in- 
deed, I admitted all this when 1 said, " in connection with the 
reading lesson," &c. The description of the reading lesson, 
given in the Report, is that of a common reading lesson, such 
as I have witnessed in many schools, not only in Boston but 
elsewhere ; therefore I did not think it necessary to give the 
details of the account. Besides, it was the " oral lecture " 
which he set forth as constituting the peculiar excellence of 
the exercise ; it was the " oral lecture " that I objected to as 
" a method of instruction " " inconsistent " with the purposes 
for which public instruction is designed ; and that, as the 
" E,eply " acknowledges, was " the only thing noticed " in 
my article. But says the Secretary, " They make me say that 
the teacher consumed an entire hour." Did he not say so ? 
Listen to his language : 

" The teacher then entered into an explanation of every part of it, 
in a sort of oral lecture, accompanied with occasional questions. 
This was done with the greatest minuteness. Where there was a 
geographical reference, he entered at large into geography, where a 
reference to a foreign custom, he compared it with their customs at 
home ; and thus he explained every part, and illustrated the illustra- 
tions themselves, until, after an entire hour spent upon six, four-line 
verses, he left them to write out the sentiment and the story in prose, 
to be produced in school the next morning. All this was done with- 
out the slightest break or hesitation, and evidently proceeded from a 
mind full of the subject, and having a ready command of all its 
resources. — Report, p. 100. 

Now I appeal to the Secretary himself, to say if any one, 
on reading the above in connection with the foregoing part of 
his statement, without any previous intimation that the whole 
exercise — reading lesson, " oral lecture," and all — was limit- 



25 

ed to one hour, would not derive the impression that the 
" teacher " did consume an entire hour. 

The ^^ Reply''"' informs us, however, that the "lecture" 
consumed only " half the hour." This statement lessens, but 
it does not by any means obviate the objection. There 
would yet be half of the time which is devoted to the in- 
struction of the classes in reading and other kindred studies, 
spent in oral lecturing. It still seems to me, that so large a 
proportion of the time occupied exclusively by the teacher in 
connection with the recitations of the pupils, cannot produce 
the " highest results." 

" But," continues the Secretary, " a worse misrepresenta- 
tion than this, if worse be possible, is yet to be mentioned, in 
reference to this lesson. I added, that ' he,' the teacher, after 
his explanations, left ' them,' the pupils, ' to write out the 
sentiment and the story in prose ^ to be produced in school, 
the next morning.^ " This the Secretary calls, in his " Reply," 
the "fruit and harvest of the recitation;" and, because I did 
not allude to it in my article, he declares it (the omission to 
notice it) to be a " worse misrepresentation," — ■ " t/' ivorse be 
possible" — than all the rest. 

This charge has about equal justice with that in which he 
avers that I called the " class " " an advanced class," instead 
of " a more advanced class." The truth is, it is no misrepre- 
sentation at all. The fact, that the pupils were required " to 
write out," " in prose," the story and sentiment of those " six, 
four line verses," does not prove that it is profitable to spend 
an hour, or, as the " Reply" informs us, half of the time, at 
each recitation, in oral lecturing to young pupils. But, per- 
haps we shall understand it, with the aid of his luminous 
commentary, which I will give here. " That is," he says, — 
that is, " the pupils were required to recollect what they 
could of the lecture, — to search books upon the subject, 
and then to arrange and write down the whole [the whole] in 
prose, and to produce it in school, the next morning, for the 
examination of the teacher, both as to its matter and as to its 

D 



26 

style." What interpretation of language ! It is sometimes 
said, in cant phrase, that a certain moral faculty is susceptible 
of elasticity, but I have never heard the same quality ascribed 
to language ; I had supposed that words had a more stubborn 
identity. The simple statement, " He left them to write out 
the sentiment and the story in prose, to be produced in school, 
the next morning," means, that " the pupils were required 
to recollect what they could of the lecture, to search books 
upon the subject," [a hunter's life in Missouri!] — " to arrange 
and lurite down the whole," and to produce it in school, to 
be criticised by the teacher, " both as to its matter and as to 
its style ! " 

That part of the teachers' plan, requiring the pupils to 
"search books" upon the subjects about which their atten- 
tion is occupied at school, (which is mentioned for the first 
time, in the " Reply,^^) is undoubtedly useful ; I have known 
it to be pursued with success in the " more advanced classes " 
of some of our own schools ; but it is an argument against, 
rather than in favor of the " oral lecture ; " for where the 
pupils have been previously well drilled on their lesson, this 
additional exercise would preclude the necessity of the 
lecture. 

I should not, however, do justice to the Secretary, should 
I fail to notice, in this connection, the closing point of his 
argument in favor of this mode of instruction. It is the fol- 
lowing : 

"In reference to the modes [mode?] of teaching which 
I described, it is said, {Remarks, p. 50,) ' This method 
of mental discipline can never form those habits of patient 
investigation and keen discrimination, which are necessary to 
master science, or even in order to arrive at any high results.' 
Yet, who so famed, over the civilized world, for ' patient inves- 
tigation,' as the German scholar ? " Here, because I denied 
the efficiency of a certain method of instruction, pursued in 
some of the elementary public schools, the Secretary, to 
prove that it is effective, has adduced the world-wide fame of 



27 

the German scholar ! What logic ! The habit of " patient 
investigation," for which the German scholar has been cele- 
brated during centuries, — a habit whose final cause is to 
be traced to the social and political condition of the people, 
to the facts that the avenues to productive industry have been 
comparatively few, that the offices of power and emolument 
have been monopolized by the higher classes of society, and 
consequently, that the enterprising and aspiring of those 
who hold neither wealth nor rank, have been driven to the 
pursuit of literature for distinction, — a habit which has been 
fostered by that spirit of rivalry, since a long time rife among 
the German universities, — this habit is claimed as the fruit 
of a system of public instruction that has been in operation 
about twenty-five years ! I know not what kind of reasoning 
this can be called, but it seems to me, that it is reasoning a 
priori, from effect to cause. 

Since it has direct reference to the subject now under 
consideration, I may be allowed to notice here, a very kind 
allusion of the Secretary to his friend, Mr. William D. Swan, 
-of the Mayhew School. 

" In a school book lately published by Mr. Wm. D. Swan, of the 
May|iew School, Boston, he gives the following directions to the 
teacher, respecting a reading lesson : 

" ' A child will hardly be expected to use proper inflections unless 
he understands what he reads. Every lesson should therefore be 
explained before the child is required to read it. The best method 
of doing this, is for the teacher to read a sentence or paragraph, and 
then ask such questions as will naturally be suggested. Take for 
instance the first paragraph in the following lesson. After reading 
it, ask the questions. What is a pony .? Did you ever see a pony .? 
How many boys and girls in this class are six years old .? This 
method will tend to secure the attention of the pupils and cause them 
to think for themselves.'' — Swan's Second Part, p. 23. 

"After giving such directions as the above, how could Mr. Swan 
stultify himself, by condemning my account of the Prussian method, 
which embraces all of merit belonging to his own, and ^es far 
beyond his own, in teaching children ' io think for themselves?'''''' 
— Reply, p. 83. ' 

As this rebuke is administered to Mr. Swan because he 



28 

sanctioned my remarks, and since he cannot with propriety 
answer for himself, I will answer for him. 

In the first place, Mr. Swan has not condemned the 
"Prussian method" of teaching to read; neither have I. 
The objection in my article, referred to the " oral lecture " 
only, which occurred after the reading lesson was com- 
pleted. This " lecture " was no part of the reading lesson. 
It was designed to impart "general knowledge" to the 
pupils, —not to teach them to read. The drilling upon the 
" pronunciation," " tone," &c. ; the changing of the poetry to 
prose, in order fully to understand the meaning of the piece, 
— all that constitutes a thorough lesson in reading, was 
accomplished before this lecture commenced. Mr. Swan 
undoubtedly approved of the lesson, though he did not of 
the " oral " accompaniment. It was very natural that the 
Secretary should desire to teach his friend a severe lesson, to 
cure him of his presumption ; but he has been most unfortu- 
nate in the attempt. He has evidently drawn his bow with a 
good-will, but his shaft has fallen wide of the mark. He 
avers that Mr. Swan has stultified himself. As it would not 
be becoming to return this spicy compliment to the Secretary, 
I will forbear further remark. 

Before leaving the consideration of this subject, I will 
quote a few observations from my article, relating to the 
mode of imparting instruction : 

" Here, lest we be understood to hold in light esteem, the ability 
on the part of the teachers to arrest the attention, and interest the 
mind of the pupil, we expressly state, that we not only deem such 
ability of great importance, but that we consider it one of the high- 
est qualifications of the teacher, and absolutely necessary to proper 
government and successful instruction. We do not object to the 
exercise of such ability on the part of the teacher, to arouse the 
mental energies of his pupils, to interest them in the pursuit of 
knowledge, and to call forth into action the higher qualities of their 
moral and social natures ; but we do object to the exercise of that 
ability to such extent, and in such manner, that the pupils become 
accustomed to depend, for their motive to mental effort, upon that 
excitement alone which is furnished by their teacher. We would 
have them stimulated to the pursuit of knowledge, by a love of that 



29 

pursuit for itself, and by a proper appreciation of its results ; and not 
by that temporary interest which is awakened by the pleasing man- 
ner or amusing speech of their instructer ; for, the former influence, 
becomes a constant spring of action in the mind, while the latter, 
depends for its existence upon the presence of the teacher who exer- 
cises it." — Remarks, p. 46. 

It was in connection with these observations upon what I 
believed to be proper habits of instruction, that I adverted to 
the Secretary's description of the Scotch schools. I did so, 
not for the sake of finding fault, but to show the bad tendency 
of certain habits of instruction which I believed to be ap- 
proved by Mr. Mann, and which were most assuredly spoken 
of approvingly in his Report. He has animadverted upon 
my observations relating to this subject, in his " Reply " to 
the first section of the " Remarks." But, as I am not willing 
that another should bear the blame, which attaches properly 
to myself, I will assume the responsibility of those charges 
which relate to my article. 

Speaking of my reference to his account, he says : " It is 
referred to, without any authority whatever, as a ' vividly- 
colored picture of the imagination,' ' a good-humored carica- 
ture,' rather than ' a correct description,' &c." 

Now my language was, " We vmre not a little troubled to 
divest ourselves of the idea, that we were contemplating a 
vividly-colored picture of the imagination, and that Mr. Mann 
was indulging in a good-humored caricature of the modes of 
instruction." This surely is not assuming that it really was a 
" caricature," and then referring to it as such. I will give the 
account upon which I commented, that others may judge 
whether or not I stated the case too strongly : 

" To an unaccustomed spectator, on entering one of these rooms, 
all seems uproar, turbulence, and the contention of angry voices, — 
the teacher traversing the space before his class, in a state of high 
excitement, the pupils springing from their seats, darting to the mid- 
dle of the floor, and sometimes, with extended arms, forming a circle 
around him, two, three, or four deep, — every finger quivering from 
the intensity of their emotions, — until some more sagacious mind, 
outstripping its rivals, solves the difliculty, — when all are in their 



30 

seats again, as though by magic, and ready for another encounter of 
wits. 

"I have seen a school kept for two hours in succession, in this 
state of intense mental activity, with nothing more than an aherna- 
tion of subjects during the time, or perhaps the relaxation of singing. 
At the end of the recitation, both teacher and pupils would glow 
with heat, and be covered with perspiration, as though they had been 
contending in the race or the ring. It would be utterly impossible 
for the children to bear such fiery excitement, if the physical exer- 
cise were not as violent as the mental is intense. But children who 
actually leap into the air from the energy of their impulses, and 
repeat this as often as once in two minutes, on an average, will not 
suffer from suppressed activity of the muscular system." — Report, 
pp. 66, 67. 

Can any one who reads this description, wonder that I 
was " troubled " to divest my mind of the idea that I was 
contemplating a " picture of the imagination?" But let us 
examine the details of this account, and see what the impres- 
sion must be upon the mind of one who should attempt to form 
a definite notion of the exercises described. The Secretary 
says : " I have seen a school kept for two hours in succession, 
in this state of intense mental activity, with nothing more 
than an alternation of subjects during the time, or perhaps 
the relaxation of singing." He informs us, also, that the 
children, during these exercises, " actually leap into the air 
from the energy of their impulses, and repeat this as often as 
once in two minutes, on an average." We will suppose it 
to be on an occasion when they have no other relaxation than 
" an alternation of subjects during the time." In this case, 
the exercises would be continuous, or nearly so, for the space 
of two hours ; and in a " school " of sixty boys, there would, 
during that time, be three thousand and six hundred leaps 
" into the air I " one leap in every tivo seconds ! What a 
scene for a school-room ! I trust I shall not be very severely 
censured for having been tempted to consider this sketch 
somewhat highly wrought. 

But the Secretary seems to consider it a question of 
veracity, and adduces the evidence of two distinguished gen- 
tlemen to prove that his account was an exact description of 
what he saw in the Scotch schools. 



31 

Now I never dreamed of questioning the " veracity " of the 
Hon. Secretary, nor did I ever seek to "affix" a " stain" upon 
his " honor." Had I directly questioned the accuracy of his 
description, I should not have considered even that, an im- 
peachment of his veracity ; but I did not. On the contrary, 
I proceeded to notice his account as though it were true ; 
I noticed it, because I believed the mental exercise there 
described 1o be extremely injurious to the pupils. I did not, 
however, make this decision as a matter of opinion alone ; I 
adduced evidence from the Report ilself, in substantiation of 
my position. The following quotation, from the " E-emarks," 
will present a fair view of my criticisms, and of the ground 
upon which I sought to justify them : 

" Now we do not hesitate to say, that such a state of mental ex- 
citement as Mr. Mann describes in the above language, cannot be 
healthful ; and that such extravagant mental exercise is not condu- 
cive to the formation of those thoughtful habits of mind, which alone 
can work out the results of reason. And we most earnestly pray 
that our country, — whose citizens are already, to a great extent, 
destitute of habits of independent thought and deliberate action, and 
too much accustomed to think and act through the forced excitement 
of motives that may be, and often are, supplied by wicked and de- 
signing men, — may be kept forever safe from a system of public 
instruction which we think calculated to augment so great an evil. 
And we trust that the energy and impialsiveness of our noble-minded 
youth, may not be subjected to a discipline, whose tendency must be 
to enfeeble, rather than to invigorate, their mental faculties ; and to 
render them the weak subjects of passion, rather than rational free- 
men. May our system of education be designed to cultivate the 
reasoning faculties of our pupils, and to render them not only edu- 
cated, but thinking men, qualified to support the institutions of our 
country, and to protect them against the invasion of misguided 
enthusiasm and the treachery of political ambition. But that we 
may not be charged with speaking from the authority of our own 
opinion merely, we will turn again to the Report, to substantiate our 
views. On the 176th and 177th pages, after commending the ef- 
ficiency of the intellectual training in a school of high character in 
Edinburgh, and expressing his astonishment at the familiarity of the 
pupils with the writings of the New Testament, and at the wonder- 
ful facility with which they recognised the chapter and verse of 
different passages which he read to them, Mr. Mann makes the 
following statements : 

" ' Amazed at this command of the Bible by children so young. 



32 

said to myself, How happy, if their ideas and sentiments of duty 
correspond with their verbal knowledge of the great source whence 
they derive its maxims.' ' I then asked the class what they understood 
by the word " honesty," or, " what it is to be honest." After a little 
delay, one of the class replied : " To give momey to the poor ; " and 
to this definition all assented. I then inquired what they understood 
by the word "conscience." Several replied, "it is the thinking 
principle." I asked if all agreed to that, and all but one gave token 
of assent. This one, — a remarkably intelligent looking boy, — observ- 
ing that I was not satisfied with the reply, said, " Conscience tells us 
what to do ; " and when I rejoined, " Does it not tell us also what not 
to do ? " he assented. I requested the class to give me an instance of 
what was meant by " lying." All exclaimed, as with one voice, 
" Ananias and Sapphira ; " but beyond this, though I pressed them 
for some time, they could present no combination of circumstances 
which would answer the description of lying.' — Report, pp. 176, 
177. 

" After giving an account of various other questions similar to the 
above, Mr. Mann again says : ' The children had been admirably 
trained in most respects, but their minds seemed not to have been 
turned in this direction.' Now we cannot think with Mr. Mann that 
those children ' had been admirably trained ; ' and we do think that 
their failure to answer his simple questions, and the obtuseness of 
their perceptions, plainly evinced by their inability to comprehend 
his repeated suggestions, satisfactorily show, that it was not moral 
training alone, which the pupils lacked, but intellectual ; and, further 
afford fair ground for the inference, that the intellectual training 
which they did receive was so mechanical and faulty, as to deprive 
the pupils, to some extent, of the power of exercising their judgment, 
even in the ordinary decisions of common sense." — Remarks, pp. 
47-49. 

I know not how Mr. Mann regards these last remarks, for 
he has not noticed them in his " Reply " ; but I may cite the 
opinion of his distinguished friend, Mr. George B. Emerson, 
who, while he was defending the Hon. Secretary, still seems 
to have done so with a truth-loving spirit. In his little pam- 
phlet, entitled "Observations," he says, — speaking of my 
notice of Mr. Mann's description of the Scotch schools, — 
" The notice is a fair one, excepting always the gratuitous 
assumption, that Mr. Mann intended in his account of either, 
any reflection upon the schools of Boston. It is not easy to 
conceive of any thing more objectionable than the modes of 
instruction used in the Scotch schools, — certainly, any one who 



33 

had seen the quiet energy of some of our Boston schools^ loould 
not hesitate to prefer it to the rabid and exhausting volubility 
of master and scholar in the Scotch^ 

But in his "• Reply," the Secretary himself disavows ap- 
proval of the severe mental exercise, or " agonism " in these 
schools. He says, {Reply ^ p. 47,) " Not a word intimating 
such approval can be found in my Report." 

We will examine a few passages of that Report. After 
giving an example of the thoroughness with which the Scotch 
instructers taught the intellectual part of reading, in which 
he says, " they furnish a model worthy of being copied by 
the world," he introduces his account of their " agonism " 
with the following remark . 

"But all this; — admirable in its way, — was hardly worthy to be 
mentioned in comparison with another characteristic of the Scottish 
schools, viz. the mental activity with which the exercises were con- 
ducted, both on the part of the teacher and pupils." — Report, p. 62. 

Not a word of approval ! 

Again, at the close of his account, he says : 

" But in the mode above described, there is no sleepiness, no 
droning, no inattention. The moment an eye wanders, or a counte- 
nance becomes listless, it is roused by a special appeal ; and the 
contagion of the excitement is so great as to operate upon every 
mind and frame that is not an absolute non-conductor to life." " I 
was told by the Queen's Inspector of the schools in Scotland, that 
the first test of a teacher's qualification is, his power to excite and 
to sustain the attention of his class. If a teacher cannot do this, he 
is pronounced, without further inquiry, incompetent to teach." — 
Report, p. 67. 

If these be not words " of approval," I respectfully inquire, 
What significance have they in the connection in which they 
are used ? 

The next criticism which the "Reply" notices in my 
article, is, upon a distinction made by the Secretary in his 
Report, between our mode of teaching arithmetic and that of 
the Prussian instructers. My criticism was as follows : 

" In speaking of the difference between the Prussian method of 

E 



34 

ieachlng arithmetic, and our own, Mr. Mann says, that they require 
a more tliorough analysis of all the questions than we do, but do not 
separate the processes so much from each other. Surely the above 
is a most unfortunate comment upon the Secretary's ability lo judge 
of tlie different methods of imparting mathematical instruction." — 
Remarks, pp. 50-1. 

This criticism he declares to be " a most obvious perversion " 
of his language and meaning, and " as unpardonable as 
obvious;" and he gives a singularly lucid exposition of it, 
which I will now proceed to examine. 

He says, " Reply," p. 84 : 

"This criticism depends wholly for its validity upon the omission 
of the turning point, the descriptive words in the paragraph of my 
Report, to which it refers. My language was this : 

"'It struck me that the main differences between their mode of 
teaching arithmetic and ours, consist in their beginning earlier, con- 
tinuing the practice in the elements much longer, requiring a more 
thorough analysis of all questions, and in not separating the processes, 
or rules, [or rules,] so much as we do from each other. The 
pupils proceed less by rule, [by rule,] more by an understanding of 
the subject. It often happens to our children that while engaged in 
one rule, [in one rule,] they forget a preceding. Hence, many of 
our teachers have frequent reviews. But there, as I stated above, the 
youngest classes of children were taught addition, subtraction, multi- 
plication, and division, promiscuously. And so it was in the later 
stages.' &c." — Report, p. 104. 

I will first consider the " language " of the Report, to 
see if its " meaning- " be so very " obviovs,'" that, to mistake 
it, is an unpardonable offence. Take the following clause, 
— "requiring a more thorough analysis of all questions, and 
in not separating the processes, or rules, so much as we do 
from each other." 

In the first place, this " language " is not correct, — for a 
" rwZe " may contain one, two, three, or half a dozen "pro- 
cesses ; " hence, to separate " processes," is not to separate 
" rules." It is evident, therefore, that in criticising this lan- 
guage of the Secretary, I could take but one of these two 
distinct propositions. The question in my mind was, 
which of the two conveys his meaning? I first considered 



35 

the proposition, " not separating the rules so much as we 
do from each other," — and I was wholly unable to under* 
stand its application. In the instruction of the lower classes 
in arithmetic, in nearly all the schools that I have ever visited 
in Massachusetts, — in which, T have witnessed instruction 
in those rules, — addition, subtraction, multiplication, and 
division, have been so taught, that, although the separate 
principles therein involved have been set forth and explained, 
their relations to each other have been most fully illustrated. 
The common direction for proving the solution of a ques- 
tion in simple subtraction, is, '''■add the remainder to the 
smaller quantity, and if the sum be equal to the larger quan- 
tity, the work is correct." Where the pupils are required to 
prove all their solutions, as they usually are, will they not be 
taught addition and subtraction '■'■promiscuously?''^ Again, 
a common definition of multiplication is, " a short way of 
performing repeated additions of a number to itself; " and to 
illustrate this, the pupils are generally required to perform the 
two operations upon some given numbers. 

The relation of division to subtraction is taught in a simi- 
lar manner. 

The muUiplication of large numbers necessarily involves 
addition, and that, too, in the manner best adapted to test the 
pupil's knowledge of that rule. Division \n large numbers, 
or long division, necessarily involves subtraction, and in a 
long operation the process is repeated several times. More- 
over, multiplication and division are intimately connected ; 
for, not only must the divisor be multiplied by each quotient 
figure, and the several products successively subtracted from 
the dividend separately, but, to prove the work, the divisor 
must be multiplied by the entire quotient. Here, in a single 
rule, is involved the repeated use of two other rules. Now, 
if " addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division," can be 
taught any other way than '■'■ promiscuously ^ I would respect- 
fully inquire of the Hon. Secretary, how it is to be done. 
There surely can be no advantage in giving the pupil ques- 



36 

tions, first under one rale and then under another, when the 
second involves the constant use of the first. 

But I will endeavor to be entirely fair. He did not confine 
himself to these four simple rules ; for, in the same connection 
he said, " and so it was in later stages;" — that is, the rules 
in more advanced stages of arithmetic were taught " promis- 
cuously." It remains to consider this proposition. We will 
take the principles of vulgar fractions, as they come among 
the first of those " later stages." 

The calculations in this department of numbers, require 
the constant use of the simple or fundamental rules above 
referred to, in almost their whole extent. Moreover, the com- 
plicated cases of fractions, which necessarily come last, involve 
the continual application of the simpler cases which precede. 
The addition of unlike fractions, for instance, requires first, 
reduction to a common denominator, or to a least common 
denominator, which is a preceding case ; this latter reduction 
requires the least common multiple of the denominators ; the 
rule for finding this multiple involves both division and niul- 
tiplication ; then follow the processes for finding the new 
numerators, which require, also, both division and multiplica- 
tion ; and all these operations must be performed before we 
come to the addition of the numerators, which completes the 
work. 

The same operations are required in the subtraction of 
unlike fractions. 

The reduction of complex fractions includes several of the 
preceding rules, and so it is with all of the complicated cases 
of fractional calculation. The rules of compound numbers 
are brought into practice in several of the cases, both of 
vulgar and decimal fractions ; and the rules in decimals for 
changing them to vulgar fractions, and for changing vulgar 
fractions to decimals, give also constant practice in calculating 
by both of these classes of numbers. Thus, while we 
advance to the investigation of new principles, we find the 
constant recurrence of those which" we have already con- 



37 

sidered. ^^ So it is in later stages;" the questions ordinarily 
given in "relations of numbers" involve the application of 
very many of the preceding rules. 

Now, with all these facts present to my mind when I criticised 
the Secretary's language, how could I suppose that he meant 
to declare that the Prussian instructers' method was to teach the 
" rules " " promiscuously," in distinction from " our " method, 
by which also they are taught •^promiscuously." The other 
proposition regarding the " processes," incorrect as it was, 
had some meaning; this did not seem to have any. I took 
not only the most correct, but the most charitable construction 
of his language, — a construction tenfold more to his credit, 
than the one which he claims to have intended. Yet he says, 
" the word rules or rule, the Thirty-one expunge, in order to 
obtain Ql pretext for their criticism, and a. semblance of justice 
for their charge of ignorance against me." 

But the " Ueply " continues : 

" Here it must be evident to every one, that the words ' rules ' and 
' rule ' are the leading words in my paragraph. In our old arithme- 
tics, we had ' The Rule of Three Direct,' ' The Rule of Three In- 
verse,' and ' The Double Rule of Three.' We also had the ' Rule 
of Three Direct in Vulgar Fractions,' ' The Rule of Three Direct in 
Decimals,' &c. Under these 'Rules' the child had the luminous 
information, that ' If more require more, or less require less, the 
question belongs to the Rule of Three Direct.' ' But if more require 
less, or less require more, it belongs to the Rule of Three Inverse.' 
In one of the most popular of the old arithmetics, the new beginner 
had this beam of light flashed full in his face, namely, whether ' two 
or more statings be necessary, may always be known yrom the tiature 
of the question ; ' — the consequence of which was that he was 
usually made blind for a month, and sometimes for life. Practice 
also was distinguished from the Rule of Three, and was itself sub- 
divided into some twenty ' Cases.'' Now the doctrine of Ratios, and 
Proportions, embraces all these. Our old arithmetics, also, separated 
Fractions from Integers, Interest from Discount, &c. &c." — Reply, 
pp. 84, 85. 

"Our old arithmetics ! " "In our old arithmetics " the 
"rules" were separated from each other! This, then, is the 
solution of the mystery. I more than suspected that the 
Secretary received some of his impressions in relation to the 



38 

subject which he has discussed, from our old arithmetics, and 
" 0?//"" old methods of teaching ; but I never knew before how 
vivid those impressions were in his mind, or how much they 
affected his decisions. 

With what perfect blindness does he cite, against his 
own statements, the following fact. " Colburn, to a great 
extent, fused rules together; and his pupils proceeded less by 
arbitrary directions which they did not comprehend, and more 
by an understanding of the subject." 

Now Colburn's excellent treatises on mathematics have 
been in use about twenty years, and have, moreover, been 
extensively used ; and the method of instruction adopted in 
many places, is precisely his method, by which, as the 
" Reply " avers, the pupils proceed " by an understanding of 
the subject." Besides, other arithmetics have been prepared 
in which also the " rules are fused together," so that " our old 
arithmetics," with their multitudinous " cases," and their 
blinding " beams of light," have gone generally out of use. 

The Secretary says in the closing portion of this most 
singular exposition, — 

" Now it is most obvious that when I said the Prussian teachers 
did not ' separate the processes, or rules, so much as we do from 
each other ; ' and that subsequent lessons were a kind of review of 
preceding ones, I referred to their giving such miscellaneous ex- 
ercises, in subsequent lessons, as would involve the use of the pupil's 
previous knowledge ; so that if any one were found ' halting or fail- 
ing on a particular class of questions, he might be plied with ques- 
tions of that kind until his deficiencies were supplied.' " — Reply, 
p. 85. 

If any one desires further evidence than that which T have 
already given, to prove that in our mode of teaching, " the 
subsequent lessons are a kind of revieio of the preceding 
ones," and that " such miscellaneous exercises " are given " in 
subsequent lessons," as necessarily " involve the use of the 
pupil's previous knowledge," I refer him to the sections on 
vulgar and decimal fractions, exchange of currencies, rela- 
tions of numbers, &c., in Emerson's Part Third, or to the 



39 

corresponding sections in Colburn's Sequel, or Davis's, or 
Leonard's Arithmelics, to examine for himself.* 

So much for ray " most obvious and unpardonable per- 
version " of the Secretary's "language" touching the dis- 
tinction between "their [the Prussian instructers'] method of 
teaching arithmetic, and ours." But " the most amusing " 
part of it is yet to follow. He says, — 

"I believe that, throughout that paragraph, I brought myself 
clearly within the rule of Quintilian, ' that one should not only so 
speak that he can be understood, but so that he cannot be misunder- 
stood ; ' for Qijintilian must have had a mental reservation as to an 
honest mind in the reader. My expressions bear no resemblance to 
those he criticises, ' Chremetem audivi percussisse Demeam,'' or 
'■visum a se hominem lihrum scriienlem ; '' for something had to be 
stricken out from mine before they could be perverted." " May not 
the perspicuity and significance of a sentence have some reference 
to the clear-headedness of the reader as well as of the writer .'' " — 
Reply, p. 86. 

Without undertaking to discuss the question whether or 

not Quintilian " must have had a mental reservation as to an 

honest mind in the reader," I will leave his rhetorical rule to 

^be applied by others, where it may seem to have the most 

fitting application. 

" Were it not for graver matters contained in the ' Re- 
marks,' " continues the Secretary, " I should be almost tempted 
to avail myself of some of the opportunities for a retort, which 
they so frequently present. On the page I am considering, 
the following position is laid down : ' A question containing 
but one process, if it be properly stated, must include the 
analysis of that process.' Now I should suppose that the 
answer, and not the question, would contain the analysis ; for, 
if the analysis were stated, and ' properly stated,' in the ques- 
tion, what would be left for the pupil to do?" 

How unfortunate for me that the Secretary did not 
yield to the temptation, and avail himself of some of those 
opportunities which "50 frequently occur'^ in my article, 

* I might refer with equal propriety to several other arithmetics now in 
common use. 



40 

to " retort " upon me : I should, doubtless, have profited 
much by his instructions. Still more unfortunate is it, that 
the opportunity of which he did avail himself, should have 
arisen from my mistake in correcting the proof, and not from 
any error in the manuscript. The copy, which is still in the 
hands of the printer, reads thus : " The solution of a question 
containing but one process, if it be rightly stated, must 
include the analysis of that process." This, I believe, is a 
correct proposition. 

His criticism is a legitimate one, for he surely was not 
accountable for my oversight in the examination of the 
proof. Yet, the meaning of the language, as it is in the 
"Remarks," is quite obvious from the context, — so much 
so, indeed, that I did not notice the omission of the words 
in the last part of the sentence. The preceding clause was : 
" The analysis of a question in mathematics necessarily 
implies the separation of the different processes of its solu- 
tion," — in which the idea is clearly presented, that the 
analysis relates to the processes of the " solution.''^ Without 
this preceding clause, that part of the sentence which he 
criticises, and which he separates from the rest, becomes 
sheer nonsense ; but with it, one could hardly fail to perceive 
the meaning of the whole. I will not retort upon the Sec- 
retary, his allusions to the "clear-headedness" or to the 
" honest mind " of the critic, for I can hardly believe that 
either of them had much to do with the above criticism. 

One word upon his correction of my mistake. He says, 
" I should suppose that the answer, and not the question, 
would contain the analysis," &c. If he intends to use the 
word " answer" in its technical, arithmetical sense, this is not 
correct ; for the solution properly includes the analysis, and the 
'''^ answer ^^ is simply the result at which the solution arrives. 

One charge of the Secretary had nearly escaped my notice. 
On the 84tli page of the " Reply," immediately after his 
description of my criticism upon the " oral lecture," is the 
following : 



41 

"Whoever desires a companion-piece of misrepresentation, to 
place, side by side, with their description of the reading lesson, will 
find it by comparing page 54 of the ' Remarks,' with pp. 100-3 of 
my Report, on the subject of teaching arithmetic." — Reply, p. 84. 

As I am not informed in what this " misrepresentation " 
consists, I can make no dejEinite answer to the charge ; but I 
will quote from the Report the account which I criticised, that 
others may judge for themselves. 

" Children are taught to cipher, or, if need be, to count, soon after 
entering school. I will attempt to describe a lesson which I saw 
given to a very young class. Blocks of one cube, two cubes, three 
cubes, &c., up to a block of ten cubes, lay upon the teacher's desk. 
The cubes on each block were distinctly marked oiT, and differently 
colored, — that is, if the first inch or cube was white, the next would 
be black. The teacher stood by his desk, and in front of the class. 
He set up a block of one cube, and the class simultaneously said one. 
A block of two cubes was then placed by the side of the first, and 
the class said tioo. This was done until the ten blocks stood by the 
side of each other in a row. They were then counted backwards, 
the teacher placing his finger upon them, as a signal that their 
respective numbers were to be called. The next exercise was, ' two 
comes after one, three comes after two,' and so on to ten ; and then 
backwards, ' nine comes before ten, eight comes before nine,' and so 
of the rest. The teacher then asked, ' What is three composed of.? ' 
A. 'Three is composed of one and two.' Q. 'Of what else is three 
composed ? ' A. '■ Three is composed of three ones.' Q. ' What is 
four composed of ? ' A. ' Four is composed of four ones, of two 
and two, of three and one.' Q. ' What is five composed of.'' ' A. 
' Five is composed of five ones, of two and three, of two twos and 
one, of four and one. Q. ' What numbers compose six ? seven ? 
eight ? nine .'' ' To the latter the pupil would answer, ' Three threes 
make nine ; two, three and four make nine ; two, two and five make 
nine ; three, four and two make nine ; three, five and one make 
nine,' &c. &c. The teacher then placed similar blocks side by side, 
while the children added their respective numbers together, ' two 
twos make four ;' ' three twos make six,' &c. The blocks were then 
turned down horizontally to show that three blocks of two cubes each 
were equal to one of six cubes. Such questions were then asked as, 
how many are six less than eight ? five less than seven .'' &c. Then, 
how many are seven and eight ? The answer was given thus ; eight 
is one more than seven, seven and seven make fourteen, and one 
added makes fifteen ; therefore eight and seven make fifteen. Q. 
How many are six and eight? A. Eight are two more than six, 
six and six make twelve, and two added make fourteen. Or it might 
be thus ; six are two less than eight, eight and eight are sixteen, two 
taken from sixteen leave fourteen, therefore eight and six are four. 



42 

teen. They then counted up to a hundred on the blocks. Towards 
the close of the lesson, such questions as these were put, and readily- 
answered : Of what is thirty-eight composed ? A. Thirty-eight is 
composed of thirty and eight ones ; of seven fives and three ones ; 
— or sometimes thus : — of thirty-seven and one ; of thirty-six and 
two ones ; of thirty-five and three ones, &c. Q. Of what is ninety 
composed ? A. Ninety is composed of nine tens, — of fifty and 
forty, &c. &c. 

" Thus, with a frequent reference to the blocks to keep up attention 
by presenting an object to the eye, the simple numbers were handled 
and transposed in a great variety of ways. In this lesson, it is 
obvious that counting, numeration, addition, subtraction, multiplica- 
tion and division were all included, yet there was no abstract rule, or 
unintelligible form of words given out to be committed to memory. 
Nay, these little children took the first steps in the mensuration of 
superficies and solids, by comparing the length and contents of one 
block with those of others." — Report, pp. 100-2. 

All this is very fine ; the description reads well, and the 
recitation is beautifully accurate and successful ; but it must 
be remembered that these are " verp young " pupils, — that 
the recitation consists in prompt and accurate answers from 
the class without any explanation or assistance from the 
teacher; that these "very young" pupils are learning "to 
count ; " and that in a single recitation, they accomplish not 
only this exercise, but that they calculate various combinations 
of numbers, from two, to one hundred. 

To any one who knows the difficulty with which " very 
young " children learn numerical calculation, it must be 
obvious that this exercise, which the Secretary describes, was 
not the recitation of a single lesson, but a review of many 
lessons, and the result of much drilling. It is altogether too 
complicated to be called " a lesson." But supposing it to be 
a single lesson, and that learning to count be the first object, 
the exercise is certainly cumbered with much that would 
only confuse the ideas of the pupils.* 

On page 51, of the " Remarks," there is a brief comment 
upon some advice given in the Sixth Annual Report of the 

* See " Remarks," p. 54. 



43 

Secretary, relating to the mathematical instruction in our 
schools. It is as follows : 

" And yet, this is not the first instance of inaccuracy to be found 
in the writings of the Secretary, on the subject of mathematical 
instruction ; in his Sixth Annual Report, after deprecating the study 
of algebra in our schools, he proposes the following question : 
' Among farmers and road-makers, why should geometry take pre- 
cedence of surveying ? ' But, we leave this question to the con- 
sideration of mathematicians^''' — Remarks^ p. 51. 

The purport of this comment was, that the Secretary had 
mistaken the relation which algebra, geometry, and surveying 
bear to each other ; that instead of following the order which 
he recommends, algebra and geometry should take precedence 
of surveying, because, to those who do desire a scientific 
knowledge of that art, the knowledge of algebra and geometry 
is an almost indispensable prerequisite. 

But he entirely misapprehends " the meaning of this 
criticism." The following is his interpretation of it : 

" Now if I rightly divine the occult meaning of this criticism, it 
is, that, as surveying necessarily includes something o? geometry^ it is 
incorrect to take an exception to the study of geometry,, and yet 
recommend surveying. But the propriety of my expression lies in 
this, that geometry and surveying, geometry and navigation, geom- 
etry and trigonometry, &c., though including some principles in 
common, yet are universally spoken of, not only in common speech, 
but in scientific works, as different branches, or studies." — Reply, 
p. 87. 

The " Reply " proceeds through a long exposition of titles 
and distinctions of titles, with a very learned citation of 
authorities to show that a work on geometry is not a work 
on surveying ; and that the two terms have a distinctive 
significance ; the conclusion of which is, that a pupil may 
" study Flint or Gummere, without opening Playfair or 
Legendre." 

It is unnecessary for me to remark upon the uselessness 
of this argument on the part of the Secretary, the indirection 
of it is too obvious to require any. 



44 

There is, however, one item, of the testimony which he 
adduces to substantiate his position, that I cannot pass 
unnoticed ; it is the following : " Mr. Sherwin, the Principal 
of the Boston High School, in a lecture before the American 
Institute, rightly says, ' When the learner is well versed in 
arithmetic, algebra and geometry, he is qualified to learn and 
understand trigonometry, and its principal applications, such 
as mensuration, navigation, &c.' " 

This, surely, is high authority. Mr. Sherwin undoubtedly 
understood, in all its bearings, the subject he was discussing ; 
but, that a gentleman of so much legal acumen as the Hon. 
Secretary, should adduce his opinion as evidence in the case 
now before us, is a matter worthy of all admiration. It is 
the most ingenuous self-contradiction that I have ever wit- 
nessed. Having advised, in his Report, that geometry 
be not allowed to " take precedence of surveying among 
farmers and road-makers," (which was the " inaccuracy " 
adverted to in my article,) he declares, in his " Reply," that 
Mr. Sherwin " rightly says " — " rightly, ^^ mark the word 
— that the " learner " " is qualified to learn and understand 
trigonometry, and its principal applications, such as mensura- 
tion ! [or surveying] navigation, &c.," " when he is well 
versed in arithmetic, algebra and geometry ! " not before, but 
" ivhen " he " is well versed " in those studies, he " is qualified " 
to " understand" " mensuration " or surveying ! It is impos- 
sible to conceive of any thing more exquisitely accommo- 
dating than this. He has not only brought out the very 
evidence that I require, to sustain me in my criticism, but he 
has actually sanctioned it by his own approval ! In attempt- 
ing to prove what I never denied, what the merest schoolboy 
would not think of denying, namely, that it is proper to use 
geometry and surveying as distinct terms ; he has virtually 
acknowledged, not only that his advice upon the subject of 
mathematical instruction in our schools was entirely wrong, 
but that it was so through his ignorance of the subject to 
which it related. 



45 

After citing the learned and distinguished commissioners 
who prepared the Revised Statutes of the Commonweahh, and 
the Boston School Committee, as authority for using the words 
geometry and surveying as distinct terms, he says, " The 
above is the only exception taken in this part of the ' Re- 
marks ' to my Sixth Annual Report." 

With the explanations already given, it is sufficient to say, 
that no such exception as he alludes to, has been taken in any 
part of the " Remarks," — that my criticism related to the 
arrangement of the studies, not to the use of the terms. 
But listen to the remarks with which the Hon. Secretary 
dismisses this subject : 

" Who does not commiserate the men whose ravenous appetite 
for censure compelled them to go poaching^ night after night, through 
the various topics of a long Report, and vi'ho could bring away only 
this one innocent sentence as a trophy of their skill? " — R^ply, 
p. 88. 

For noticing what he himself has. in effect, admitted to be 
an egregious error in his Sixth Annual Report, I am accused 
of having a " ravenous appetite for censure," and I am called 
a poacher I 

On page 112 of the " Reply," he says, with reference to 
a subject which he there discusses, — "Any comments or 
epithets, applied to this, however severe, would only lighten 
the crushing weight of the facts." As a fair inference from 
this is, that he supplies his argument with " epithets " when 
it is wanting in " facts," I may conclude that the above is 
a case in which the argument is not sufficiently " crush- 
ing," and that the " epithets " are " applied " to make up 
the deficiency. 

" I am told," he continues, " that this section of the 
' Remarks ' was written by one of the youngest members of 
the ' Association.' Happy young man ! When one thinks 
of the pleasures there are in acquiring knowledge, how it 
tempts him to envy the boundless gratification you have yet 
in store." 



46 

How constantly the Secretary's quiet seems to have been 
disturbed by the vision of my youthfulness ! 

I know not what rank in the scale of human frailties he 
will assign to this fault of mine, if fault it may be called ; 
but I assure him it is one which time is rapidly correcting. 
Before his superior wisdom, I bow myself in all humility, 
and confess my ignorance. I am but a neophyte in the great 
mysteries of learning, and, as yet, behold only in the distance, 
the beautiful temple where he offers up the incense of his 
worship. But how unkind of him, who now proudly surveys 
the " boundless fields " which he has explored, and reflects on 
the myriad " pleasures " of his broad acquisitions, to taunt 
me with the scantiness of my acquirements ! How ungener- 
ous for him, who has mounted the hill of science, and is now 
treading in the pleasant haunts of learning, revelling in the 
delightsome "gratification" of her thousand graces, to sneer 
at me who am but just commencing the toilsome ascent, with 
scarce a flower to cheer me in the rugged^ pathway. Such, 
surely, cannot be the offspring of that wisdom, whose " ways 
are ways of pleasantness, and all whose paths are peace." 

Leaving the consideration of the Secretary's ungrateful 
and unjust accusations, I come now to that portion of his 
" Reply " in which he considers the subject that was the theme 
of my article ; namely, the use of text-books. In relation to 
this, he declares that the reasoning in the " Remarks " had 
no relevancy to his Report. The following is his statement 
in the " Reply : " 

" The last few pages of this section of the ' Remarks ' are devoted 
to the subject of using text-books. It is here averred that I have 
' condemned at once, not only their abuse, but their use, also ; and 
adopted an extreme which we [they] believe must be more injurious 
in its influence upon the minds of pupils, than the greatest possible 
abuse ' of them. Now, on this subject, the ' Remarks' tend to mis- 
lead, and have misled, many minds. The Prussian pupils have 
text-books, and use them both at home and at school, and I never 
said any thing to the contrary. It was the teachers of whom I said, 
that I never saw them using a text-book in school. The statement of 
this fact respecting the pupils' use of text-books, answers much of 



47 

the reasoning contained in the ' Remarks ; ' or rather, it shows that 
that reasoning had no relevancy to my Report. 

" The question is thus narrowed down to a single point, whether it 
is an injury to a school to have a teacher who has had such general 
or special preparation, out of school, that he never needs a text-book 
in it."— Reply, pp. 88-9. 

The Secretary here asserts, that " the Prussian pupils have 
text-books," and that he never " said any thing to the con- 
trary." "Without doubt they have text-books. I never re- 
ceived any impression from the Report that they had no 
text-books, or that they did not ^^use^' them as books of 
reference ; but, it is one thing to " have " them and quite 
another thing to study them attentively ; to be thoroughly 
drilled in their use, and required to master the contents by 
their own individual efforts. The pupils may have text- 
books, and yet be taught entirely by the oral method. But 
in order to render this clear to the mind of the reader, I will 
quote from the Secretary's Report, some of his descriptions 
of the exercises in the Prussian schools, from which I derived 
my impressions, and to which, as I understand it, the reason- 
ing in the " Remarks " is entirely relevant. 

" It struck me that the main differences between their mode of 
teaching arithmetic and ours, consist in their beginning earlier, con- 
tinuing the practice in the elements much longer, requiring a more 
thorough analysis of all questions, and in not separating the pro- 
cesses, or rules, so much as we do from each other. The pupils 
proceed less by rule, more by an understanding of the subject. It 
often happens to our children that while engaged in one rule, they 
forget a preceding. Hence many of our best teachers have frequent 
reviews. But there, as I stated above, the youngest classes of chil- 
dren were taught addition, subtraction, multiplication and division 
promiscuously. And so it was in the later stages. The mind was 
constantly carried along, and the practice enlarged in more than one 
direction. It is a difference which results from teaching, in the one 
case, from a book ; and in the other, from the head. In the latter 
case the teacher sees what each pupil most needs, and if he finds any 
one halting or failing on a particular class of questions, plies him 
with questions of that kind until his deficiencies are supplied." — 
Report, p. 104. 

Is it not evident that the method of instruction here 



48 

described is the oral method ? Are not the exercises promis- 
cuous, and does not the drilling consist entirely in the 
questions proposed by the teacher? 
Again : 

"In algebra, trigonometry, surveying, geometry, &c., I invariably 
saw the teacher standing before the blackboard, drawing the dia- 
grams and explaining all the relations between their several parts, 
while the pupils, in their seats, having a pen and a small manuscript 
iook, copied the figures, and took down brief heads of the solution; 
and at the next recitation they were required to go to the blackboard, 
draw the figures and solve the problems themselves." — Report, 
p. 104. 

The above, surely, is a perfect example of oral instruction, 
and that, too, in its fullest extent. Yet, the Secretary asserts 
in his " Reply," that it was only " the teachers of whom " he 
said, " I never saw them using a text-book in school," and 
that " the question is thus narrowed down to a single point, 
whether it is an injury to a school to have a teacher who has 
had such a general or special preparation out of school, that 
he never needs a text-book in it." 

I will quote still further, lest the reader may not clearly 
understand that " the question is thus narroiued down " in 
the " Reply," and not in the Report. Speaking of the quali- 
fications of the Prussian teachers, their ability to impart a 
knowledge of nature, of the world, &c., to their pupils, he 
says : 

" Suppose on the one hand, a teacher to be introduced into a 
school, who is competent to address children on this great range and 
variety of subjects, and to address them in such a manner as to 
arouse their curiosity, command their attention, and supply them not 
only with knowledge, but with an inextinguishable love for it ; — 
suppose such a teacher to be able to give one, and sometimes two 
such lessons a day, — that is, from two to four hundred lessons in a 
year, to the same class, and to carry his classes, in this way, through 
their eight years schooling." — Report, p. 124. 

" It is easy to see, from the above account, how such a variety of 
subjects can be taught simultaneously in school, without any inter- 
ference with each other; — nay, that the 'common bond' which, as 
Cicero said, binds all sciences together, should only increase their 
unity as it enlarges their number." — Report, p. 125. 



49 

" As 1 entered, the teacher was just ready to commence a lesson 
or lecture on French history. He gave not only the events of a 
particular period in the history of France, but mentioned as he pro- 
ceeded all the contemporary sovereigns of neighboring nations. The 
ordinary time for a lesson, here as elsewhere, was an hour. This 
was somewhat longer, for towards the close, the teacher entered 
upon a train of thought from which it was difficult to break ofl', and 
rose to a strain of eloquence which it was delightful to hear. The 
scholars were all absorbed in attention. They had paper, pen and 
ink before them, and took brief notes of what was said. When the 
lesson touched upon contemporary events in other nations, — which, 
as I suppose, had been the subject of previous lessons, — the pupils 
were questioned concerning them. A small texl-hook of history was 
used by the pupils which they studied at home.'''' — Report, pp. 133-4. 

No one can doubt that this was oral instruction. But 
it is useless to pursue the investigation any further. We 
learn from the above quotations, that arithmetic, algebra, 
geometry, trigonometry, surveying, history, and various other 
studies, are taught orally ; and not only do these quotations 
show the extent to which oral instruction is pursued in the 
Prussian schools, but they express also a decided approval 
given by the Secretary to this method. Whether the 
reasoning upon this subject in the " Remarks" be not relevant 
to such opinions as are expressed in these extracts, I submit 
to the decision of any candid reader.* , 

In the Secretary's writings upon this subject, there is one 
train of syllogistic reasoning which arrives at too startling a 
conclusion to be disregarded. In reference to some observa- 
tions in his Report upon the abuse of text-books, I said in the 
"Remarks" that the case presented was "an exaggerated 
one," and one which " in any intelligent community, would 
at once condemn the teacher who should allow it, as incom- 
petent to his office." In answer to this the " Reply " says : 

" In reference to what is acknowledged to be the ' abuse of text- 
books,' — to those cases, namely, where the book may be said to use 

* It was the extent to which oral instruction was approved in the Secre- 
tary's Report that was objected to in the "Remarks;" the details of 
instruction in some of the branches taught in the Prussian schools are 
similar to those pursued by our own teachers, 
a 



50 

the teacher, rather than the teacher the book ; — the ' Remarks ' say, 
that 'any intelligent community would at once condemn the teacher 
who should allow it, as incompetent to his office.' 

" But, in the first place, it is more than doubtful whether a com- 
munity, really ' intelligent ' on the subject of education, would employ 
such a teacher ; and so the remark contains its own refutation." — 
Reply, pp. 91-2. 

Now the case to which I had " reference," where " the book 
may be said to use the teacher," was one which the Secretary 
presented in his Report, p. 122, as an illustration of the " habits 
which prevail in most of our schools," with our own instruc- 
ters, in teaching the "higher branches." The two proposi- 
tions, briefly stated, would be as follows : 

1st. In most of our schools, in teaching the higher branches, 
" the book may be said to use the teacher, raiher than the 
teacher the book." 2d. " It is more than doubtful whether a 
community really intelligent on the subject of education, 
would employ such a teacher." 

These two statements constitute the premises of a most 
remarkable syllogism, of which the unavoidable conclusion 
is, that "it is more than doubtful whether," in most of our 
communities, those who employ the teachers, are "really 
intelligent on the subject of education !" 

But enough of criticism. Had I not been driven to it, in 
defending myself from the unwarranted strictures of the 
" Reply," I would gladly have avoided it in this Rejoinder. 

The Secretary notices the " caption" of the second section 
as inappropriate. I admit that it is so ; it was designed as the 
caption to the second and third articles, but the separation of the 
two in the " Remarks " limits it to ray own. The aim of ray 
article was to discuss the use of text-books and the modes of 
imparting instruction. The question involved in this dis- 
cussion is one of great importance ; one upon which two great 
classes of educators are at present divided in opinion. The 
oral method is advocated by many, because it is said to 
relieve the pupil from much of the drudgery of acquisition, and 
to render that which is imparted to him more interesting, and 
hence more impressive. Mr. Mann has evidently approved 



51 

of this system, because it is the most pleasing to the pupil, 
lessening the toil of study, lightening his task, and diminish- 
ing the necessity for coercion and punishment. 

I grant that this method is the most pleasing, both to 
teacher and pupil; it relieves them from much of that irksome 
drilling which is the tedious part of elementary instruction. 
It is far more agreeable to lecture to pupils who are animated 
and eager listeners, than to compel them to severe and con- 
tinuous study ; and it is far more grateful to the pupils to be 
the passive recipients of knowledge, (if I may use the terra in 
such connection,) rendered simple by the labored illustration 
of oral instruction, than to acquire it for themselves by con- 
stant and toilsome application. Were it the object of educa- 
tion, only to impart general knowledge, or only to refine the 
taste and cultivate the imagination, I know not but this method 
of instruction might be pursued with the most advantage. 

This however is not all. We have not alone to supply intel- 
lectual food to the mind, for its new-born energies have not in 
their undeveloped capacity sufficient power to receive and 
digest the knowledge of much that is obvious to their atten- 
tion, or in which even, many of the relations of life are inti- 
mately involved. 

But, say the advocates of this system, does not each truth 
that the mind perceives, give additional power and a stronger 
desire for other and still higher perceptions. I grant that, 
other things being equal, this is true. Yet the simple recep- 
tion of knowledge does not afford such exercise to the facul- 
ties of the mind as will give them the strength requisite for 
powerful exertion. As bodily power comes only by continued 
exercise of the muscles, so mental power can be obtained only 
by constant and vigorous training of the mental faculties. 

But we are told, again, that knowledge becomes power to 
the mind, and a fair inference seems to be, that it possesses 
power in proportion to its store of knowledge. This is true^ 
however, only in a limited sense. For the power which we 
derive from that source is subjective, not objective ; in its 
most important application it is practical, and subserves our 



52 

external relations rather than the operations of the mind. 
Besides, the acquisition of knowledge is a labor which 
scarcely commences in childhood, and should cease only with 
life ; and the object of 'elementary education should be to 
train the faculties that they may labor successfully ; to cul- 
tivate the power of attention or concentration, — that centri- 
petal force of the mind which governs its energies, and gives 
intensity to thought ; and which, if I mistake not, is the very 
element least of all developed in the American character. 
The course of study even in our higher seminaries and col- 
leges, is arranged with reference to the object of mental 
discipline, and is far more useful for that than for the store of 
knowledge which it imparts. Indeed, as far as mere acquire- 
ment is concerned, the student who has passed through all 
the successive grades of schools, has achieved only the begin- 
ning of his education. 

It is obvious, then, that scholastic instruction, while it 
may be entirely practical in its application, should be chiefly 
designed to develop the intellect, to give it compass and 
strength. But here, again, we may suppose that the young, 
if they are taught to appreciate the beauty of knowledge and 
have once partaken of its delicious fruits, will be impelled by 
the cravings of the intellectual appetite, to seek it with an 
earnestness of purpose that will achieve this very discipline 
so much desired ; that we have but to interest them in the 
thousand exhibitions of infinite wisdom presented everywhere 
around them, and they will hasten to investigate their charac- 
ter, and to trace out their most intimate relations ; an exercise 
which will not only give full play to the intellect, but will 
elevate their moral sentiments, by imparling to them the great 
lesson of divine goodness so beautifully and wonderfully 
inscribed on the handiwork of the Creator. 

This view is beautiful, and to some extent true; there 
is a love of truth implanted in every heart; of truth in 
its largest sense, as the great revelation of all that relates 
to human existence, all that may be compassed by human 
comprehension. But this is not apphcable to the present 



l 



53 

question ; for we find an obstacle in the character of the 
youthful mind which at once overthrows this pleasing theory. 
The love of truth, or the desire for knowledge, although in 
childhood, it may be more than any other, the motive power 
of the intellect, and may quicken into life its slumbering 
faculties, does not in any way direct and regulate its action ; 
and that very restlessness of desire which moves it to act, 
permits it to cast only a slight and superficial regard upon the 
objects of its attention. As the physical sense of taste 
prompts the child to eat that which will only pamper the 
appetite, and gives no thought of its proper digestion and 
ultimate effect, so this new-born desire for knowledge is 
founded upon no definite idea of its proper direction and 
appropriate uses ; but like that physical sense, is the better 
pleased the lighter the food and the more rapidly it can 
devour it. Hence the mind in its uncultivated state, while it 
is active, is fickle, and though never satisfied with attainment, 
it is often satiated with the objects of its attention. Ever 
excited to seek for what is novel, the excitement dies when 
the novelty ceases, and it shrinks from a further pursuit of 
that which no longer affords immediate gratification. Appa- 
rently eager in the search for truth, it seeks but a slight and 
superficial acquaintance with the subjects of its investigation. 
It loves to look upon the world only in those phases in which 
it may be presented through the dull medium of the senses ; 
and though it receives the rude elements of knowledge, it 
loves not the task of elaborating and refining them till they 
shine forth in the clear light of reason. Thus it fails of that 
invigorating exercise which would be derived from the labor 
of tracing out the intimate relations of those subjects which 
it investigates, and though it may acquire an increased desire 
for knowledge, itself receives not such nourishment as will 
give strength and energy to its faculties. 

No argument is necessary to prove that this tendency must 
be counteracted, that the power of attention must be cultivated, 
and proper habits established, before the pupil can be expected 
to pursue successfully the path of learning. Indeed, what- 

I 

y 
I 



54 

ever be his lot in life, even though in some humble sphere, he 
be denied all opportunity of searching out the mysteries of 
science, or of seeking the embellishments of literature, yet 
the ordinary pursuits of business and the common discharge 
of duty, will place obstacles in his way, which can be sur- 
mounted only by strenuous mental exertion. 

In any event, then, it is the development of mental power 
at which we should aim in the intellectual training of the 
young. The true idea of such training is often presented in the 
history of self-educated men. Attended by adverse circum- 
stances, and not unfrequently denied the common facilities 
of learning, we find them struggling with unyielding endur- 
ance for the acquirement of knowledge. Constant exercise 
gives force and vigor to the intellect, and severe applicatioHj 
that irresistible power of concentration which enables it to 
exert the united energies of its faculties upon the object of 
its attention. Thus the mind gains activity at the same time 
that it gains strength, and a deeper thirst for knowledge with 
an increased ability to acquire it. This is precisely the end 
to be attained in elementary instruction. The perceptive and 
reflective powers are to be developed, that the mind may be 
prepared for the emergencies of life, that reason may hold 
fitting sway over the imagination and the sympathies, and the 
whole intellect be trained to full and harmonious action in the 
perception of truth. 

Placed in a world upon every phase of which are inscribed 
the wonderful lessons of infinite wisdom, and surrounded by 
intelligent beings, with whom and to whom we mutually 
sustain the iimumerable relations that have grown out of the 
institution of society and the common bond of our creation, 
it is only by the highest exertion of the intellect, in its full 
capacity, that we can investigate these varied relations and 
understand the numberless obligations which arise from them. 
We need not be taught so much what to think, as how to 
think. Barrenness of ideas and mental inefficiency exist not 
from a want of the objects of knowledge, but from a want of 
intellectual culture. 



35 

The aim of education, then, should be, not alone to implant 
ideas in the mind, for its perceptions must always correspond 
to its own capacity, but to develop its powers, that it may 
become alive to the impression of the external world, and in 
turn react upon it with a higher sense of its beauty, and an 
increased desire for the enjoyment of its charms. Such 
training will prepare the lowliest laborer in the humblest 
department of human industry, lor constant elevation in the 
scale of intelligence. 

It is not sufficient, however, merely to awaken the curiosity 
of the mind, or to excite its admiration of the beauties of 
knowledge ; it must be trained to labor, to encounter and 
overcome severe obstacles, until it acquires a consciousness 
of its own power, a feeling of self-reliance upon its own 
intelligence. Then it is roused at once to a sense of its vast 
responsibilities ; the intellectual vision becomes more clear, 
and thought rises on swifter wings ; then, in every institution 
of society and in every form of life, are seen the evidences 
of wise design ; every aspect of nature becomes replete 
with beauty, and the whole world radiant with the light of 
truth. 

The above observations on the object of instruction, have 
been introduced for two reasons ; first, because, owing to the 
brevity of the original article in the " Remarks," the applica- 
tion of the use of text-books to that subject was not very 
fully explained ; secondly, because, as that subject is of far 
greater importance than the criticisms which I have been con- 
sidering, I am not willing that it should be set aside by 
merely personal controversy. 

Thus far I have omitted all notice of the moral element of 
education. I have done so, not because I hold it in light 
esteem, but because the subject which I have discussed in 
this article relates only to the training of the intellect. With- 
out that element, however, education is by no means complete. 
It is only by developing every faculty which God has given 
us, that we can form a true character or satisfy the wants of 



56 

our nature. All the powers of the mind must be trained to 
act in unison, and all in due degree. The lower impulses 
must be subjected to the higher, and the control given to those 
principles of our nature which are designed to be the guides 
of human action. Then, only, can we hope to be wafted 
safely upon that sea of passion, in whose ceaseless tide are 
mingled the sweet and bitter waters of life ; from whose depths 
when calm and clear, is reflected the sunshine of happiness, 
but amidst whose stormy waves man makes the shipwreck of 
his soul. 

I cannot conclude this Rejoinder without noticing the Sec- 
retary's parting benediction to his " young friend," After 
declaring that I had been commissioned to " cull " from his 
Report " whatever, either by omission or distortion could be 
made to bear the semblance of wrong, and to send it out to 
the world," he says, " Yet go in peace, my young friend, for 
this time, but remember hereafter to seek for that which is 
good, and not for evil." 

Singular benevolence! After having subjected me to 
the most severe yet unmerited censure, throughout the whole 
of his reply to my article, he condescends to dismiss me "/or 
this time " " in peace ! " With what complacency does he 
arrogate to himself the right to judge my motives, and with 
what a supercilious air of conscious triumph does he warn 
me " hereafter to seek for that which is good, and not for 
evil!" Were it not for the dignity of his station, and the 
authority of his high character, this would be sufficiently 
ludicrous. But it is not now my purpose to find fault ; I pre- 
fer a more generous conclusion, and in all sincerity, I confess 
my belief in the usefulness of many of the Secretary's official 
labors, and in his devotion to the cause of education. Yet 
while I render due respect to his high station and elevated 
character, I cannot acknowledge the inlallibility of his educa- 
tional opinions, or the immunity of his public writings from 
fair and honest criticism. 

WM. A. SHEPARD. 

Boston, March, 1845. 



REJOINDER 



THIRD SECTION OF THE "REPLY.' 



Having read with care the " Reply " of Mr. Mann to 
the third section of the " Reniarks," I am surprised, not less, 
at his evasion of the true points at issue, than at his ungener- 
ous treatment of what seem to me valid objections to the new 
plan of teaching reading. Judging from his professed wil- 
lingness to welcome discussion, I had reason to expect that a 
defence of the old system would have received at his hand, at 
least, a candid consideration. But in this I am disappointed. 
Arguments, if sound, like genuine coin, shine brightest when 
subjected to the severest tests; but, if unsound, like counter- 
feit coin, not only betray their spuriousness when submitted to 
the ordeal, but are at once condemned as worthless. If the 
" new system " is the true and philosophical method of teach- 
ing children to read, how easy it had been for the Secretary 
to show the absurdity of objections urged against it, and the 
speciousness of arguments brought to uphold the opposite 
system. I believe that a discussion of this subject at the 
present time is needed. Mr. Mann himself calls it " debata- 
ble ground," and says he has " welcomed discussion." Why 
then, should he attempt to evade the true question in debate ? 
Why attempt to elude the force of arguments by shrinking 
from the positions which, as I shall soon show, he has once 
1 



maintained ? Why, seize upon a few minor, and compara- 
tively unimportant points, in order to mangle and pervert the 
whole ? Why call that which divides us, " a vapory mass," 
" a league-square of sea-fog," and then leave it untouched 
and unanswered ? 

With his rhetoric I have nothing to do. It should have 
lent its charms to logic unblemished by sophistry, and not to 
the concealment of fallacy and misrepresentation. While 
I shall seek to point out and correct his perversions, I 
shall pass by his thrusts and personal allusions as irrele- 
vant; answering once for all, in the language of Themis- 
tocles to Alcibiades, " Strike, but hear." Though it were 
easy to show the injustice and unkindness of such allusions, 
I can ill afford to suffer the discussion of an important subject 
to be diverted to a personal warfare. Even were this to be 
done, and were the Secretary to succeed in crushing an ob- 
scure individual to the dust, the victory would be inglorious, 
inasmuch as it would be appreciated by a few only in the city 
of Boston, and a few out of it. But if, in achieving such a 
conquest, he, with a fame world-wide, should present the un- 
lovely example of treating an opponent who is seeking after 
truth, with unkindness, indulging in harsh epithets and un- 
called-for severity, exhibiting, in all, more of tact than of 
candor, he would depress himself " many, many degrees," 
and tarnish a reputation, the acquisition of which has cost 
years of toil. But, by addressing himself exclusively to the 
points at issue, and by showing with arguments of irresistible 
force, that his positions are founded in reason and common 
sense, he would honor, not less the cause of education than 
himself, while, at the same time, he would make unnumbered 
converts to his favorite theory. 

If I have indulged in ridicule, it has not been ridicule of 
him, but of what seemed to me his absurd assumptions ; and- 
if in this I have erred, I submit whether it has not been an 
error of yielding to a temptation into which his own example 
would naturally lead one. 



Divested of all extraneous matter, let the discussion then 
be confined to the subject before us. I would here premise, 
that I prefer to take to myself the entire responsibility of this 
rejoinder, that all appearance of sanction from names may be 
avoided, and that the question may rest on its own intrinsic 
merits. Notwithstanding I have been accused of borrowing 
my article from the Common School Journal, — an accusa- 
tion as unjust as it is ungenerous, and as untrue as unjust, 
— I shall defend it as my own. I do this, moreover, as an 
act of justice to those with whom I am associated. Though 
the article appeared originally under the sanction of the 
Association of the Boston Masters, I am willing to hold 
myself responsible for the sentiments it contains. If, then, 
tlie section, "from beginning to end, is an arrant misrepre- 
sentation of the system it professes to impugn," [Reply, 
p. 96,) let the blame rest on me, and not on the Asso- 
ciation, whose confidence in the thoroughness of my in- 
vestigations, without a minute examination of all the details 
of the system, led them to subscribe to the sentiments ad- 
vanced. If the " Remarks," by italicizing the word " total," 
(p. 99,) have given an "emphasis of falsehood," justice 
demands that I should rescue from so foul a stain those who 
would not for a right hand " bear false witness " against a 
neighbor, or a neighbor's sentiments. If intended insult has 
been heaped upon the Secretary, Thirty, out of the " Thirty- 
one," I am confident, are innocent. If the subject has been 
enveloped in a " league-square of sea-fog," let the sunlight of 
peace dispel "the vapory mass" from around my associates, 
though I, beclouded and alone, be left to feel the " sharpened 
end " of the Secretary's " rod." 

One word may be expected of me touching the Secre- 
tary's "proffer" of peace. [Reply, p. 165.) If he means by 
"peace," to imply that I am hostile to him personally or offi- 
cially, he has wholly misconceived my aim in this discussion. 
I have never been at issue with him in this respect. Or, if he 
means to offer to me and others the privilege of surrendering 



to him our own opinions concerning modes of instruction and 
school discipline, the proffer would be no less insulting, than, 
if accepted, it would be dangerous ; inasmuch as it would 
imply that all educational matters are to be monopolized by 
him and his friends. This cannot be his intent. But if he 
means, that, while he accords to me the right to cherish my 
own opinions and to practise in accordance with them, he 
now extends to me an opportunity of co-operating with him 
so far as we can agree, and, in this respect, enjoy " an en- 
during peace," the proffer is superfluous, for this has been 
precisely our relation ever since his appointment to his present 
office. What, then, is his meaning ? Even in cases where 
there cannot be harmony in opinion, I am ready " to agi'ee to 
differ, and thus differ in peace." Does he complain because 
I have made public one of those points of difference ? And 
now does he call upon me to confess an error in this respect, 
and thus make peace ? Such conditions would be not only 
unequal but unjust. He has a right to his opinions, and 
a right to publish them. By the same rule, I have a right 
to mine, and a right to defend them. Nay, the dissemination 
of his views, conflicting as they do with mine, especially if 
they are adopted, or are likely to be, affords sufficient reason 
why I should publicly express my distrust of them. Where, 
then, can we meet ? Or, in other words, what obstacles have 
I thrown in the way of an " enduring peace? " 

Nor have I felt the least desire to destroy a particle of his 
fame, or withhold the meed of praise due to his exertions. 
Hence I said, {Remarks, pp. 56, 57,) " Though differing from 
Mr. Mann upon this subject, we would, by no means, be 
supposed to undervalue his efforts in the cause of education, 
or detract aught from the benefits his labors have conferred. 
Our dissent from his views arises from an honest conviction 
that, if adopted, they would retard the progress of sound 
learning." Had it been consistent with the discussion of a 
single subject, I would have gone further, and spoken of 
the benefits of his exertions. I should have expressed no 



more than the spontaneous sentiments of my own heai't^ 
had I said, that the improved condition of school-house 
architecture, the subject of ventilation, the better construction 
and arrangement of school furniture, added to many valuable 
hints, by means of his Journal and lectures, on modes of 
instruction, on the union of districts, &c., &c., all gather 
around him as so many living witnesses, bearing testimony 
to the usefulness of his labors. But this would have been 
irrelevant, and foreign to the subject under discussion. With 
these preliminary remarks, I proceed to an examination of 
the " Reply." 

The main allegation in the " Heply," and by far the most 
jrnportant point to be considered, is, that "from beginning to 
end, it [my article] is an arrant misrepresentation of the sys- 
tem it professes to impugn." Witness the following quota- 
tions : 

" There are several reasons why I shall not attempt a lengthened 
reply to this part of the ' Remarks.' The first is, that, from begin- 
ning to end, it is an arrant misrepresentation of the system it professes 
to impugn. I have never advocated, or known, or heard of, nor have 
I met any person who has ever advocated, or known, or heard of, 
any such mode of teaching the English language to cliildren, as the 
'Uemarks' assail." — p. 96. 

"The idea that the 'new system,' as advocated by Mr. Pierce, 
myself and others, postpones the learning of the alphabet, and of 
course spelling, until after seven hundred words are learned, is kept 
before the reader's mind throughout the section. (See pp. 60, 63, 
92, 102.) Now the facts that invalidate this representation, stand 
conspicuously out, in the very productions from which it professes 
to be derived." — p. 98. 

" Mr. Pierce's direction therefore, is, ' After the scholars are able 
to manage with ease, such simple sentences ' as the above, ' let them 
be taught the names and sounds, of letters.' What an outrage, 
then, was it to say, that Mr. Pierce would postpone the teaching 
of letters, until after ' two thousand,' or ' one thousand,' or ' seven 
hundred,' whole words had been learned, and then, ' IF ever,' begin 
' to combine letters into words.' Must a child learn seven hundred 
words before he can read, ' A nice fan,' or other similar sentences ? 
Take the common type, in which this Reply is printed, and I doubt 



whether seven hundred different words can be found on any three 

full pages in it." — pp. 98, 99. 

" Still more enormous is the statement in relation to the ' Primer,' 
which is said to be my 'standard;' for, according to the directions 
contained in that, about a fifth part of the letters were to be learned, 
by or before the time that one hundred words were to be ; and in re- 
gard to spelling, which, of course, must be subsequent to learning 
the letters, it says, ' There is no doubt, that the sooner it is begun, 
intelligently, the better.' Yet the ' Remarks ' say, ' What surprises 
us most, if this be the meaning, is that Mr. Mann should discover 
from such defective instruction, reasons for a total neglect of the 
alphabet.' The italicizing of the word total, is not mine ; the ' Re- 
marks ' themselves give it this emphasis of falsehood. What an 
exorbitant misrepresentation, on the threshhold of the section, of my 
views and of the views of those with whom I agree ! " — p. 99. 

Those portions of the " Remarks " whiqh the Secretary 
here attempts to invalidate, are found on pages 59 and 60, as 
follow : 

" The plan of teaching, as developed by the publications of the 
Secretary, by Mr. Pierce's ' Lecture on Reading,' and by various 
other publications, is substantially as follows : whole, but familiar 
words, without any reference to the letters which compose them, are 
first to be taught. The alphabet, as such, is kept entirely concealed. 
Some three or four words are arranged on a single page of a primer 
prepared for the purpose, or are written on the black-board several 
times, and in various orders, as follows ; cat — dog — chair ; dog — 
cat — chair ; chair — cat — dog. These are pointed out to the 
child, who is required to utter them at the teacher's dictation, and to 
learn them by a careful inspection of their forms, as whole objects. 
After these are supposed to be learned, new words are dictated to 
the pupil, in the same manner as before. This process is repeated 
till the child has acquired a sufficient number of words to read easy 
sentences, in which they are combined. To what extent this mode 
of learning words should be carried, is nowhere definitely stated. 
Mr. Pierce says, ' When they are perfectly familiar with the first 
words chosen, and the sentence which they compose, select other 
words, and form other sentences ; and so on indefinitely.' He then 
proceeds to recommend several books, as containing suitable senten- 
ces for this purpose. Of these, one prepared by Miss Peabody, now 
Mrs. Mann, contains, he says, 'a full illustration of the whole method, 
with words and sentences.' Since this book is also recommended, by 
the Secretary, as containing the best exemplification of the whole 
plan, it may be taken as a standard, by which to form an estimate of 
the extent to which the friends of the new system would carry this 
process of teaching words." — Remarks, p. 59. 



" It appears then, that at some period in the child's progress, after 
learning seven hundred, a thousand, or two thousand words, he is to 
commence the laborious and unwelcome task of learning ' the un- 
known, unheard and unthought-of letters of the alphabet.' Here, if 
ever, it is supposed he begins to learn how to combine letters into 
words ; that is, learns how to spell." — Remarks^ p. 60. 

This representation of the " new system " is declared to 
be an " outrage." Let us examine its extent. As Mr. Mann 
had nowhere given a definite idea of the plan, but had 
spoken of it as an undefined something, incomparably better 
than the old system, I was compelled to seek for details from 
some other source. I examined the written publications of 
the most approved advocates of the plan, — of those, I am 
happy to be assured, with whom he agrees. (See " Reply," 
pp. 97, 99.) If, then, I have misrepresented Mr. Pierce, or 
the author of the Primer, I have misrepresented the Secretary ; 
for he has informed us that he agrees with them. Equally 
certain will it be, should it turn out that I have not misrepre- 
sented them, that I have not misrepresented him. Since I 
took the plan of teaching, mainly from Mr. Pierce's lecture, 
I will give his own views of it, in his own language, and 
then compare them with my statements which are declared 
to be " an arrant misrepresentation." The lecture is to be 
found in the volume of lectures published by the American 
Institute of Instruction for 1843. 

Mr. Pierce says, p. 149 : 

" Begin with loords, not letters ; words printed on the black-board. 
Let them be simple words, — short words; generally the names of 
familiar things, and such as children are acquainted with." 

Again, p. 150 : ' 

" When they are perfectly familiar with the first words chosen, 
and the sentence which they compose, select other words and form 
other sentences; and so on indefinitely, taking care to choose those 
which are easily pronounced, and the names of familiar things. Let 
the sentence which they form be short and easy. As children ad- 
vance, both words and sentences may, of course, increase in length 
and difficulty." 

" The following may serve as a specimen of the manner. Write 



on the black-board several times and in various orders, the followiag 
words: large, has, two, cow, the, horns ; cow, horns, large, has, twOy 
the ; has, cow, horns, large, the, two ; horns, has, two, the, cow, 
large ; and finally, combine them into the sentence, — 'The cow ha& 
two large horns.' Again ; take the following sentence, and resolve 
it ioto its component parts, writing the words in various orders. 
'^The dog has four legs.' Legs, four, dog, the, has; dog, the, four, 
has, legs ; four, dog, has, the, four, &c. Then combine them again, 
so as to form the original sentence, — ' The dog has four legs,' " — 
p. 150. 

The following quotation will show that the plan of teach- 
ing the child to recognise the word, was correctly represented 
in the " Remarks : " 

" Take for instance the word cat. You show them the animal, or 
the picture of the animal. Ask them whether they know what it is. 
They will say, ' it is a cat.' You will say, ' that is right.' Pointing 
to the name, you will say, ' Here is the name, — cat, — cat, — cat,^ 
repeating it several times, and requiring them to repeat it after you. 
Show them the picture, and let them say cat, cat, cat ; and then show 
them the word, and let them say cat, cat, cat; thus alternating, first 
with the picture and then with the name." —p. 151. 

While the alphabet, as such, is kept entirely out of sight,, 
and before the child is supposed to know the name or poiver 
of a single letter, the following directions are given : 

" In reading sentences, be careful that the pupils do not acquire a 
drawling, hesitating, or stammering manner ; or a nasal twanging 
tone. Let them be perfectly familiar with every word of which the 
sentence is composed, before you allow them to read it aloud. And 
when they read it let it be done in their natural tone. Let it be as 
though they were telling it or talking it over to you without the 
book." — p. 153. 

After dwelling at some length upon the prevailing defects 
in reading, Mr. Pierce introduces the following sentence, 
which will serve to throw some light upon the extent to 
which he would have the system prosecuted : 

" When the scholars have reached this stage of advancement, 
[that is, can read easy sentences,] you may teach them the name 
and the powers of the letters, especially the latter, though I can 
conceive no great disadvantage from deferring it to a still later 
period." — p. 156. 



9 

The following passage will serve to exhibit the system in 
relation to its plan, its extent, its connection with spelling, 
and the methods ^of teaching it. It shall be quoted entire. 

" It has been objected to this method of beginning with words, that 
it depends on memory ; that children in this way will be able to read 
no more words than they remember, if they have learned twenty- 
six words, they may, it is true, read any sentences that may be com- 
posed of these twenty-six words, but no more. The moment they 
come to a sentence which has a new word in it (the twenty-seventh) 
they must stop. They can go no farther, as they have no means by 
which they can possibly ascertain what to call the new word. Well, 
and what then ? Will they never be able to learn to read, does it 
follow? I think not. How is it in learning to talk? Children 
learn to talk by means of words, yet they can utter no more words 
than they have learned, — than they can rememler. When they 
wish to express something for which they have no word, not having 
yet learned it, they must keep silent ; they can say nothing. They 
can only give expressions to their thoughts and desires by signs. 
Yet children do learn to talk; learn every day by adding new words 
to their vocabulary, which they remember, and which they call into 
use as they have need. Thus they gradually increase their stock until 
their language is sufficiently copious to express their thoughts on all 
subjects. And why may it not be so in reading ? A child to-day can 
read only the sentences which may be made up of the various combina- 
tions of twenty-six words. To-morrow, he learns a half-dozen more 
words, and by their aid can read a half-dozen more sentences ; the 
next day, as many more words and twice as many sentences ; and so 
on. It will not be long before he will have at his command a ^ew 
hundred words, — quite enough to enable him to read all the pieces 
in one of our ordinary school books, or juvenile compilations. This 
would scarcely require a thousand words» A steady continuation of 
this process would, before a very long period, — half the lapse of an 
ordinary school-life, — put the child in possession of a vocabulary 
quite as copious as that of most adults ; — even those who have had 
average advantages for education. And children, who learn in this 
way, would understand the meaning of the language they read ; — 
words with them, whether read or spoken, would be the exponents of 
thought. Reading would become what it ought to be, an intellectual, 
intelligent, intelligible business. And what if in their early reading, 
those, who are taught in this way, should occasionally meet with a 
word which they cannot call, and are obliged to pass over. So far 
as it concerns themselves, how would it be a greater disadvantage, 
than to be able to call the word, and yet not understand its meaning; 
which, I suppose, is often the fact in regard to a great many chil- 
dren who are taught in the old way. In an intellectual point of view, 
might there not be a great gain in children's not being able to call 
words, the meaning of which they do not understand ? So am I 
h 



10 

strongly inclined to believe. — I suspect, those who make the objec- 
tion, that children cannot learn to read by means of words^ because 
such a process would be a matter of mere memory, have never tried 
it. Il seems to me neither founded in reason or sustained by expe- 
rience. Ciiildren learn to talk from memory : they may learn to read 
from memory. Let them make the ^periment ; let them try it fairly 
and faithfully. Even were it a work of mere memory, 1 believe 
they will succeed. But it is not a work of mere memory. Memory 
will be aided by analogy. An ingenious child, I will say a child of 
average curiosity and quickness of apprehension, will discern analo- 
gies in words, and take advantage of them. For instance, when he 
is familiar with the words 'fan,' 'pat,' — from these he can and 
would make out what to call the word ' pan,' the first part of which 
is like the first part of ' pat,' and the last part like the last part of 
'fan.' So from 'man' and 'hat' he could make out -what to call 
'mat;' from 'depart,' 'impress,' by comparison, he could learn to 
name ' impart.' Suppose him to be familiar with the words ' fly ' 
and ' trap ' and ' mouse ; ' he would have little difficulty in making 
out the combination ' fly-trap ; ' and when he had learnt this combi- 
nation, none at all in determining what to call the combinalion, 
' mouse-trap.' All this might be done with very little aid from the 
teacher, by calling the attention of the learner to the general form 
or resemblance of the words, without a knowledge of either the 
names or the powers of the letters. Thus, to some extent, analogy 
might be brought in to the aid of memory. Again, it is objected 
that children who are taught to read in this way do not learn to spell 
well. In this objection, 1 am satisfied, there is no validity. The dif- 
ficulty lies here. Children, taught on the old plan, begin to spell 
early, attend much to spelling, and generally of* consequence spell 
better than they read. Therefore, when a child, taught on the new 
plan, is found to read better than he can spell, — to read well and 
spell poorly, we are surprised, and say he is a poor speller, and lay 
the blame to the faulty manner in which he has been taught. The 
charge is altogether gratuitous. The truth is, the child has not yet 
been taught to spell. His attention has not been turned at all to this 
subject. It is not a part of the plan to teach spelling and reading 
together; but first one and then the other. It is idle, therefore, and 
impertinent to complain, that the plan has not made the child a good 
speller. The object is to teach him to read and then to spell. When 
the child has made some progress in reading, so that he can manage 
with facility easy sentences, then he should be taught the names and 
powers of letters, especially the latter. Let this be done in a right 
manner, in a regular systematic course of exercises, and there is 
nothing in the nature of the case to prevent a child's becoming a 
good speller, though for a considerable time his spelling may be 
relatively inferior to his reading. If he does not learn to spell in this 
way, it must be owing to the loose and faulty manner in which he is 
taught. A child, who has learned to read, will be tempted to neglect 



11 



his spelling, in the perusal of an interesting story; jand the spelling 
lesson will be pushed aside and forgotten,, unless his attention is 
recalled by the watchful eye of his teacher. Here, if anywhere, lies 
the danger of his not becoming a good speller. It does not neces- 
sarily grow out of the manner in which he has been taught to read." 
— pp. 161-165. 

But that the reader may see that, in my description of the 
plan, I am sustained by Mr. Pierce, and consequently by Mr. 
Mann, T will compare the objectionable paragraphs, sentence 
by sentence, with Mr. Pierce's own statements. 



" Whole, but familiar words, 
without any reference to the let- 
ters which compose them, are 
first to be taught. " — Remarks, 
p. 59. 



"The alphabet, as such, is 
kept entirely concealed." — lb. 



" Some three or four words are 
arranged on a single page of a 
primer prepared for the purpose, 
or are written on the black-board 
several times, and in various or- 
ders, as follows : 



" Begin with loords, not let- 
ters ; — words printed on the 
black board. Let them be sim- 
ple words, — short words ; gene- 
rally the names of familiar 
things," &c. — Lecture, p. 149. 

" All this [that is, learning 
whole words by analogies] might 
be done with very little aid from 
the teacher, by calling the atten- 
tion of the learner to the general 
form or resemblance of the loords, 
without a knowledge of either the 
names or the powers of the let- 
ters." — 7^., p. 163. 

" It is not a part of the plan to 
teach spelling and reading to- 
gf liter, but first one and then the 
other." 

" The object is to teach him to 
read and then to spell. When 
the child has made some pro- 
gress in reading, so that he can 
manage with facility easy senten- 
ces, then he should be taught the 
names and powers of letters, es- 
pecially the latter." — lb., p. 164. 

" The following may serve as 
a specimen of the manner. 
Write on the black-board several 
times and in various orders, the 
following words : 



12 



cat' 
dog- 
chair ■ 
— lb* 



• dog. 
■cat — 
— cat- 



■ chair, 
chair, 
-dog. 



" These are pointed out to the 
child, who is required to utter 
them at the teacher's dictation, 
and to learn them by a careful 
inspection of their forms, as whole 
objects." — lb. 



" This process is repeated, till 
the child has acquired a suffi- 
cient number of words to read 
easy sentences in which they are 
combined. — lb. 



large, has, two, cow, the, horns 5 
cow, horns, large, has, two, the ; 
has, cow, horns, large, the, two ; 
horns, has, two, the, cow, large ; 
and finally, combine them into 
the sentence, — ' The cow has 
two large horns.' " — lb., p. 150. 

" Pointing to the name, you 
will say, ' Here is the name, — 
cat, — cat, — cat,' — repeating it 
several times, and requiring them 
to repeat it after you. Show 
them [the children] the picture, 
and let them say cat, cat, cat ; 
and then show them the word, 
and let them say cat, cat, cat." 
— lb., p. 151. ' 

" When they are perfectly 
familiar with the first words cho- 
sen, and the sentence which they 
compose, select other words and 
form other sentences ; and so on 
indefinitely."— I^'., p. 150. 



The next subject relates to the extent to which this 
mode of learning words should be carried. I took the 
Primer as one of the "juvenile compilations," all the words 
of which, children, according to Mr. Pierce, will soon be able 
to read in this way ; and ascertained the number of different 
ones to be about seven hundred, 
four books which Mr. Pierce recommended 



This was one among the 



" It appears then, that at some 
period in the child's progress, after 
learning either seven hundred, a 
thousand, or two thousand words, 
he is to commence the laborious 
and unwelcome task of learning 
' the unknown, unheard and un- 
thought-of letters of the alphabet.' 
Here, if ever, it is supposed, he 



" It will not be long before he 
will have at his command a few 
hundred words, — quite enough to 
enable him to read all the pieces 
in one of our ordinary school 
books, or juvenile compilations. 
This would scarcely require a 
thousand words. A steady con- 
tinuation of this process, would, 



* In Miss Peabody's Primer the ■words are separated by dots. These are 
the words on the first page : 

nest house bird, house bird nest, bird nest house. 



13 



begins to learn how to combine before a very long period, — half 
letters into words ; that is, learns the lapse of an ordinary school- 
how to spell." — Remarks, p. 60. life, — put the child in possession 

of a vocabulary quite as copious 
as that of most adults; — even 
those who have had average ad- 
vantages for education." — Lec- 
ture, p. 162. 

Yet Mr, Mann says, in reference to my article, " that, from 
beginning to end, it is an arrant misrepresentation of the sys- 
tem it professes to impugn." Let the reader judge. 

These quotations will justify the following inferences : 

1st. That words are to be learned, not by combining let- 
ters, but by directing the attention to their " general form or 
resemblance." 

2d. That, in this way, the child is to learn to read before 
he learns the alphabet. " The object has been to teach him 
to read and then to spell. When the child has made some 
progess in reading, so that he can manage with facility easy 
sentences, then he should be taught the names and powers of 
letters, especially the latter." In another place, he says, " I 
can conceive no great disadvantage from deferring it [teach- 
ing the alphabet] to a still later period." 

3d. That, while thus teaching the child to read, no at- 
tention whatever should be paid to the alphabet. " It is not 
a part of the plan to teach spelling and reading together ; but 
first one and then the other." " The object is to teach him to 
read and then to spell." How unlike the representation in 
Mr. Mann's " Reply " ! 

4th. That this plan of teaching the child the art of reading, 
may be pursued " indefinitely," till he has " at his command 
a few hundred words — quite enough to enable him to read 
all " — all — " the pieces in one of our ordinary school books, 
or juvenile compilations;" — not merely a few such sentences 
as, '''■Frank had a dog; his name ivas Spot,'" &c., — {Reply, 
p. 98,) — but " ALL the pieces in one of our ordinary school 
books." " This," he adds, " would scarcely require a thou- 



14 

sand words." The Primer has about seven hundred. Still 
further. — "A steady continuation of this process, would, 
before a very long period, — half the lapse of an ordinary 
school-life, — put the child in possession of a vocabulary 
quite as copious as that of most adults ; — even those who 
have had average advantages for education"! 

Yet Mr. Mann, with these passages before him, exclaims, 
[Reply, pp. 98, 99,) " What an outrage then, was it to say, 
that Mr. Pierce would postpone the teaching of letters, until 
after 'two thousand' or 'one thousand,' or 'seven hundred,' 
whole words had been learned, and then, ' if ever,' begin ' to 
combine letters into words.' " 

How could he, having this lecture in his possession, 
and intimately acquainted as he is with Mr. Pierce, utter such 
language as the following? " I have never advocated, or 
known, or heard of, nor have I met any person who has ever 
advocated, or known, or heard of, any" — any — "such 
mode of teaching the English language to children, as the 
' Remarks ' assail" ! 

Another fact will serve to throw some light upon this 
" outrage." In 1840, a little book, called " My Little Primer, 
going before ' My First School-Book,' to get me ready for 
it," was published in this city. The alphabet, as such, is 
not even inserted in it. It contains about a thousand dif- 
ferent words, as ascertained by actually counting them. 
The author, in the preface, quotes the following paragraphs 
from Mr. Mann's Second Annual Report : 

" During the first year of a child's life, he perceives, thinks, and 
acquires something of a store of ideas, witliout any reference to 
words or letters. After this, the wonderful facuhy of language be- 
gins to develop itself. Children then utter words, — the names of 
objects around them, — as whole sounds, and without any conception 
of the letters of which these words are composed. In speaking the 
word ' apple,' for instance, young children think no more of the 
Roman letters which spell it, than, in eating the fruit, they think of 
the chemical ingredients, — the oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, — 
which compose it. Hence, presenting them v/ith the alphabet, is 
giving them what they never saw, heard, or thought of before. It is 



15 

as new as algebra, and, to the eye, not very unlike it. But printed 
names of known things are the signs of sounds which their ears have 
been accustomed to hear, and their organs of speech to utter, and 
which may excite agreeable feelings and associations, by reminding 
them of the objects named. When put to learning the letters of the 
alphabet first, the child has no acquaintance wilh tiiem, either by the 
eye, the ear, the tongue, or'the mind ; but if put to learning familiar 
words first, he already knows them by the ear, the tongue, or the 
mind, while his eye only is unacquainted with them. He is thus in- 
troduced to a stranger, through the medium of old acquaintances. It 
can hardly be doubted, therefore, that a child would learn to name 
any twenty-six familiar words much sooner than the twenty-six un- 
known, unheard, and unthought-of letters of the alphabet. 

" For another reason, the rapidity of acquisition will be greater, 
if words are taught before letters. To learn the words signifying 
objects, qualities, actions, with which the child is familiar, turns his 
attention tO those objects, if present, or revives the idea of them, if 
absent ; and thus they may be made the source of great interest and 
pleasure. We all know, that the ease with which any thing is learn- 
ed, and the length of time it is remembered, are in the direct ratio of 
the vividness of the pleasurable emotions which enliven the acqui- 
sition." 

He then says : 

" In accordance with the foregoing, it is recommended to all who 
have not yet tried the system, that the scholar's attention be at first 
exclusively directed to whole words. He may even go through the 
book, the first time, entirely in this way ; in which case, no fear need 
be entertained that he will not know the alphabet in sufficient season. 
It may be well, however, in the way of variety, occasionally to 
select a short word from a lesson, and teach him to read his letters. 

" On going through the Primer a second time, pronouncing and 
spelling may be combined, keeping up the same order; that is, first 
pronouncing a word, before spelling it." 

Here, it will be seen, that a book is prepared in accorda?ice 
with Mr. Mann's views ; and, " in accordance with the fore- 
going, it is recommended to all who have never yet tried the 
system, that the scholar's attention be at first exclusively 
directed to whole words. He may even go through the book, 
the first time, entirely in this way ; " that is, may learn a 
thousand different words before learning the alphabet ! 

This ',' outrage," embodied in the form of a book, in accord- 
ance with Mr. Mann's views, has been suffered to pass unre- 



16 

buked for nearly four years. Nay more ; it has been highly 
recommended in an editorial article of the Common School 
Journal; still further — as if to make the inconsistency yet 
more glaring — in 1844, the Secretary, in his " Reply," claims 
it as a part of " American authority;" while, in the same 
pamphlet, J am accused of -an " outrage," " an arrant misrep- 
resentation," "an enormous statement," because, " through- 
out the section," I hold the defenders of the "new system" 
to the absurdity of teaching seven hundred words before 
teaching the alphabet! 

I now turn to the Primer, the abuse of which seems to be 
the ^^maxif?ium pessimum" of my article. "Still more enor- 
mous," says Mr. Mann, (p. 99,) " is the statement in relation 
to the ' Primer,' which is said to be my ' standard ; ' for, 
according to the directions contained in that, about a fifth part 
of the letters were to be learned, by or before the time that 
one hundred words were to be ; and, in regard to spelling, 
which, of course, must be subsequent to learning the letters, 
it says, ' There is no doubt, that the sooner it is begun intelli- 
gently the better.' " This Primer contains one hundred pages, 
exclusive of those on which are found the cuts for drawing. 
It is divided into two parts. Part second is, according to the 
author's description of the book, " the spelling-book of the 
Primer." It commences at p. 85, and is headed, spelling. 
On the 87th page, the alphabet is inserted for the first time. 
On page 86, are the following directions : " The first spelling 
should be of the words already familiar to the child," &c. 
Part first, occupying about four fifths of the book, contains 
several reading lessons, and words arranged as already de- 
scribed. All the different words of part first amount to about 
seven hundred. These, it is evident from the plan of the 
book, and from the directions of the author, are to be learned 
before much, if any, progress is made in spelling. The 
spelling exercises, and the directions for spelling, are to be 
found in part second. It is true, the author say* in the 
preface, after showing how whole words are to be taught. 



17 

" Before all the words are learned that belong to the first 
story, the child may" — may — "be taught several letters, 
such as 5, t, V, b, d, which sound in the words like their 
arbitrary names, and the knowledge of which may help 
them to discriminate between such words as father and 
feathers, bloivs and snows, which look very much alike." 
" Some children," it is added, " will soon inquire out all the 
letters, and as soon as they are known, it is well to let them 
spell the words with which they are already perfectly 
familiar," &c. It may be so. Some children may inquire 
out all the letters ; but what provision is made for the 
ninety-nine in a hundred that may not do it ? None at all, 
until they come to part second, — to the alphabet, to the 
spelling lessons ; that is, till they have learned seven hundred 
words. As yet, no directions are given for teaching any 
of the letters save the five, s, t, v, b, d, and these may be 
taught. Where, then, is the child to learn the letters ? In 
part second, plainly. 

But Mr. Mann quotes the following very decisive passage 
from page 5th of the preface. " There is no doubt that the 
sooner spelling is begun intelligently the better." Here he 
breaks off in the middle of a sentence, and for some cause, 
I do not say what, omits to mention the last part of it. 
This part would have been quite adverse to his purpose. 
But it must come out. The whole sentence is this : " There 
is no doubt that the sooner spelling is begun intelligently, the 
better ; but at first it should be made quite secondary." The 
first clause, detached from the second, expresses my own sen- 
timents perfectly ; there is no doubt that the sooner spelling 
is begun intelligently, the better ; but thus severed from its 
connection, it contradicts the whole plan of the book, and, as 
seems to me, is wholly irreconcilable with the last clause ; 
namely, " but at first it should be made quite secondary." 
What constitutes intelligent spelling ? A knowledge of the 
alphabet, unquestionably. Mr. Mann says in the paragraph 
under consideration, that spelling " must be subsequent to 
c 



18 

learning the letters." Now, if the sooner it be begnH iu 
gently the better, how could it^ at first, be made quite second- 
ary? To pursue the "better" course, it would be necessary 
at the outset to make the child acquainted with the letters. 
This is the plan which common sense plainly dictates. The 
Primer, then, is a book containing about seven hundred dif- 
ferent words, introduced before even the alphabet is inserted. 
It is left optional with the instructer to teach, or not to teach, 
a few letters before coming to part second ; " the child may 
foe taught," &c. It is one of the "juvenile compilations " 
which Mr. Pierce recommends ; and concerning which, he 
says, " It will not be long before he will have at bis command 
a few hundred words, — quite enough to enable him to read 
all the pieces in one of our ordinary school books.'^ 

Thus turns out this enormous statement. Had any one, 
acquainted with the facts here adduced, been called upon to 
conjecture in what manner the Secretary would have assailed 
the section in question, I believe that the accusation of mis- 
representation would have been the last to occur to him. In- 
stead of saying as I did, that " after learning either seven 
hundred, a thousand, or two thousand words," had I said 
that Mr. Pierce would teach children to read the English 
language in this way, I should have been sustained by such 
passages as I have already quoted from his lecture. 

Such ivas the " new system." But " O ! how fallen." 
How unlike that system which has been presented as one of 
the grand improvements of the age ! Now, the child should 
be fed upon " the rich meat " " for ten days, or more if need 
be." He should be taught " ordinarily less than a himdred 
ivords " before some of the letters are pointed out. 

If I might be " classical for once," I would apply to the 
" new system," as a stern reality, Eneas' dream of the pros- 
trate and mangled Hector, 

"Hei mihi, qualis erat! quantum mutatus ab illo 
Hectore, qui redit exuvias indutus Achillis." 

One more remove toward a rational mode of teaching chil- 



19 

dren to read, equal to this, would place the whole subject 
beyond the pale of controversy ; there could be left no 
" debatable ground." 

I come now to notice some perversions of my article, 
which seem to me not only unprovoked, but inexcusable in 
one who has openly welcomed discussion. The truth is, 
upon the principal points at issue, Mr. Mann has not be- 
stowed a paragraph. Professing to select " nuclei," he has 
seized upon topics having only an inferior bearing upon the 
subject, and, by a distorted and perverted presentation of 
them, has placed them in the foreground of the picture. It 
was shown in the " Remarks," that some of the most plausi- 
ble arguments for the " new plan " derived their entire force, 
if force it can be called, from confounding written with 
spoken language ; that the language for a time is deprived 
of its phonetic character, words being treated as mere arbi- 
trary pictures ; that, in his argument, Mr. Mann had con- 
founded the name-sounds of letters with their povjers, and, 
therefore, had introduced much irrelevant matter ; that he 
had greatly exaggerated the number of vowel as well as 
consonant elements of the language; that, in attempting to 
weaken the argument from the analogy between reading 
and written music, he had erroneously represented the diffi- 
culties of acquiring the latter branch ; that his arguments 
from the so-called "natural order," when applied to other 
branches to which, in fact, they are equally well adapted, 
would lead to methods of teaching, destructive of all order; 
that the whole plan is a violation of the common-sense 
principle of teaching elements first ; that the method could 
give the child no facility for learning new words ; that 
the alphabet with all its difficulties must, at some period, be 
learned, and, consequently, the child is subjected to unneces- 
sary labor; that the mere plea that the "system" awakens 
in the child pleasurable feelings, if true, affords insufficient 
reasons for its adoption, inasmuch as education has for its 
object, not the promotion of pleasure merely, but the develop- 



20 

ment of the mental faculties ; that the change which must take 
place in the modes of association, when the child is taught 
to pronounce a word by combining its letters, is perplexing 
and injurious; that words are more anomalous than letters, 
and consequently the child does not escape difficulties by 
beginning with words ; that the plan is subversive of good 
spelling, and equally so of clear and distinct enunciation. 
All these subjects were dwelt upon in the third section of the 
" Remarks," and were the prominent points in it ; yet the 
Secretary does not venture to discuss a single one of them, 
although he informs the reader at the outset, that he " shall 
content himself with endeavoring to find nuclei." And had 
he not done great injustice to the poftions he did select, 
I should have less occasion to complain. That the reader 
may see that the accusation of injustice is founded in truth, I 
will adduce several passages. 

On page 99 of the " Reply " is the following passage : 

" Yet the ' Remarks ' say, ' What surprises us most, if this be the 
meaning, is that Mr. Mann should discover from such defective in- 
struction, reasons for a total neglect of the alphabet.' The itahcizing 
of the word total, is not mine ; the ' Remarks ' themselves give it this 
emphasis of falsehood. What an exorbitant misrepresentation, on 
the threshold of the section, of my views and of the views of those 
with whom I agree ! " 

In the first place, the passage is taken out of its connection. 
It is not " on the threshold of the section," which begins on 
the 56th page, but is found on the 75th page. Of this I 
would not complain, had not the Secretary so mangled the 
passage as entirely to distort its meaning. By leaving out a 
whole clause introduced to limit the extent of this " total 
neglect," he has made me accuse him of a " total," unquali- 
fied, and perpetual neglect of the alphabet, and then ceJIs it a 
" falsehood." 

The original sentence is this : " But what surprises us 
most, if this be the meaning, is, that Mr. Mann should dis- 
cover from such defective instruction, reasons for a total 
neglect of the alphabet, till after the child has learned to readP 



21 

The clause here italicized, Mr. Mann did not insert. "Where 
I placed a comma, he has made a full stop. The plan, as 
most fully shown by quotations from Mr. Pierce's lecture, is to 
teach children " to read and then to spell," — he gives direc- 
tions as to the manner of reading before he would have them 
know even the names of the letters ; that is, he, and conse- 
quently Mr. Mann, who agrees with him, would have the 
alphabet totally neglected, " till after the child has learned to 
readP This is what I said ; and had Mr. Mann suffered the 
" Remarks " to speak for themselves, they would not have 
uttered " this emphasis of falsehood." I will not judge the 
Secretary's motives in this, but will simply add that it is to 
be regretted that one so high in influence and authority, and 
so deeply sensible of the sin of " garbling," should resort to 
such means to make out a case of falsehood! 

Mr. Mann says, p. 104 of the " Reply," " The Thirty-one 
express strong apprehension lest the child, in learning accord- 
ing to the ' new method,' should enjoy too much pleasure." 
"Where, I respectfully ask, have the " Thirty-one " expressed 
any such apprehension? Not in their pamphlet — not else- 
where. The statement is false, though I do not say de- 
signedly so. Placing it in the most favorable light, and 
calling it the result of an oversight, I must say, even then, 
pity it is that, in his " regard for exactness," expressed in 
the closing sentence of his postscript, he had not added 
another correction. 

Hear what the " Thirty-one" do say: 

" We wish to be distinctly understood on this point. Tlie teacher 
ought, when compatible with duty, to awaken in the child, agreeable, 
rather than painful feelings. He, who delights in seeing a child in a 
state of grief, is unfit for the teacher's office. On the other hand, 
he, who would substitute pleasure for duty^ or would seek to make 
that sweet, which is of itself bitter, and to make that smooth, which 
is naturally and necessarily rough, is actuated by a misguided philan- 
thropy. Hence, we dislike all attempts to make easy, and to sim- 
plify, that which is already as easy and simple as the nature of the 
case will allow. 

" The grand mistake lies in the rank assigned to pleasure. To 



22 

gratify the child, should not be the teacher's aim, but rather to lay a 
permanent foundation, on which to rear a noble and well-propor- 
tioned superstructure. If, while doing i/u's, the teacher is successful 
in rendering mental exertion agreeable, and in leading the child from 
one conquest to another, till achievement itself affords delight, it is 
well; such pleasure stimulates to greater exertion." — Remarks^ 
p. 85. 

On the next page, (the 105th,) the Secretary introduces the 
following illustration from the " Remarks." 

" There is a little nut enclosed in a prickly encasement. The 
nut itself is very agreeable to children; so agreeable as to induce 
them, at the expense of some pain, to try their skill in removing this 
unfriendly exterior. Repeated trials, with the stimulus afforded by a 
desire to gratify the taste, gives them skill ; till at length, they can 
obtain the nut without much suffering. Now suppose some ' hu- 
mane ' person, desirous of aiding the child in acquiring this kind of 
skill, and of making his task, at the same time, more pleasant, 
should begin by removing the troublesome covering with his own 
hands, and suffer the child to surfeit himself, without any effort on 
his part. Would he, in the first place, secure the object of giving 
the child skill ? and in the second place, will the child, having ob- 
tained the nuts, derive much pleasure from handling the vacant burrs? 
and, finally, does not pleasure itself become vitiated and morbid, 
when unattended with effort .'' This illustration, will, at least, apprize 
the reader of our reasons for the opinion, that the new system is the 
result of a misguided effort lo make that pleasant, which, to some 
extent at least, must be disagreeable ; to make that easy, which, from 
the nature of the case, is beset with unavoidable difficulties." — 
Remarks, p. 87. 

This illustration he has dubbed a " parable," and proceeds 
to interpret it. And in order to make the perversion " tally," 
he even contradicts his previously expressed opinions. He 

says : 

" In this parable, the chestnut is knowledge. Its pleasant taste is 
the delight of acquisition. The alphabet is the prickly burr enclosing 
it. To make the comparison tally, the child's character, happiness, 
fortune, in after-life, are to depend, to a very great extent, upon the 
facility which he can acquire in opening the burrs, and in extracting 
the precious meat. But as yet the child knows nothing of its taste, 
its utility, and its prerogative of conferring health, wealth and emi- 
nence. A question arises as to the best method of instructing and 
inducing a child to strip off the ' prickly encasement,' and obtain the 
salubrious fruit within. The ' movement ' party, or defenders of the 



23 

' new system,' say, — strip off this porcupine burr, pare off the shell, 
and offer a piece of the rich meat to the child for ten days, or more 
if need be, in succession, to see how he likes it, and to cultivate a 
taste for it." — Reply ^ p. 105. 

Are these statements true? Does a child know " nothing " 
of the " taste or utility " of knowledge before learning to 
read ? How is it with those who never learn to read ? Know 
they nothing of the utility of knowledge? Hear Mr. Mann : 
" During the first year of a child's life, he perceives, thinks, 
and acquires something of a store of ideas, without any 
reference to words or letters." If a child, during the first 
year of his life, can acquire something of a store of ideas, is 
it true that one at the age of four, five, or six years knows 
nothing of the taste or utility of knowledge? Far from it. 
He has acquired no small amount of knowledge through the 
medium of the external senses. But " after the wonderful 
faculty of language develops itself," he learns, perhaps, still 
more rapidly, by means of oral instruction. Knowledge, 
whether obtained by means of conversation or through the 
agency of books, is one and the same thing. The difference 
lies in the means by which it is imparted. It is to be 
regretted, that, in the discussion of this question, the Secre- 
tary does not suffer this distinction to be clearly made. It is 
one thing for a child to learn to speak, quite a difierent thing 
for him to learn to read ; both are aids in the acquisition of 
knowledge ; but the specific purpose of this discussion is to 
ascertain the best method of teaching the child to read. It is 
not true, then, that, with a child wholly destitute of the " taste " 
or " utility " of knowledge, the question arises as to the best 
method of leaching him to read. He ought to have, and 
actually does have, some knowledge of various subjects, 
before it is proper to commence teaching him to read. Mr. 
Mann proceeds with his interpretation of the " parable." 

" Say nothing of your ultimate object, nor of the ultimate benefit 
it may be to him. All this, he cannot yet understand ; but do it 
pleasantly, and see if his good-will be not excited ; see, if^, even be- 



24 

fore the accustomed hour, he will not present himself for the accus- 
tomed favor. After a few days, give him a nut with the shell on ; 
he will soon find how he can extract the desired kernel within. Con- 
tinue this also a few days, and when his appetite is ' sharp set,' 
then give him a burr, — the ' prickly encasement' itself, — the nut, 
with its 'unfriendly exterior,' its 'troublesome covering,' all on. 
Can any one, who knows any thing of country chestnut-parties, — 
of being in the woods, two miles from home, by daylight in the 
morning ; — can any one who has had ' practical experience ' of this, 
doubt for a moment, that the child will find a way, or make a way, as 
Lord Bacon said, to extract from the burrs, as many of the nuts as 
it is best that he should eat.? " — Reply, pp. 105, 106. 

This representation is wholly wrong. " To make the com- 
parison tally " with the truth, we must suppose the child to 
have fed upon the " salubrious fruit " for years, and that too 
with little or no knowledge of the existence of burrs. He 
has received the nuts from his mother, his brothers and sis- 
ters, by the handful. At length the time arrives for him to 
know that they grow in burrs. Now, " a question arises as to 
the best method of instructing and inducing a child to strip 
off the ' prickly encasement ' and obtain the salubrious fruit 
within." The plan of the " conservatives " has already been 
explicitly stated in the " Remarks." I need not here re- 
peat it. 

It is not surprising that Mr. Mann, wholly misconceiving, 
as he did, the design of the " parable," should have fallen 
into this erroneous interpretation. Had he called to his aid 
modern philanthropy, she would have said, on presenting a 
burr, ' My child, this is a burr. It is a chestnut burr. It 
grows in the woods. But you must not now know of what 
it is composed. The " natural order" forbids that. Adam 
did not concern himself about " heads, trunks and legs ; eyes, 
ears and noses ; hair, fur and feathers ; teeth, claws and 
beaks ; " when he gave names to " every beast of the field 
and every fowl of the air." That would have cost him an 
" antediluvian longevity." He gave names to whole animals, 
and whole birds. Suffice it, then, to say, this is a burr, a 
whole burr. Before swallowing it, it may be well to say 



25 

burr^ burr, hirr. Then take it down — take it ivliole. Never 
mind ; within is the " salubrious fruit." By this " new 
method " you are not troubled with " porcupine " quills, 
thick encasements, and shells. They all belong to the " old 
system." They are " ghostly apparitions," and descended 
from the " dark ages " " in an unbroken line." Let them 
alone for the present. After you can manage in this way, as 
many as grow on one of our ordinary chestnut-trees, you 
may then learn to strip off this outside covering and extract 
the pure "kernel" within; though it might be deferred to a 
still later period. But, perhaps, in doing this, you may 
prick your " digits ; " if so, to relieve you from a task so 
painful and unpleasant, and w^ithal to give you skill, I '11 strip 
them off for you.' 

Mr. Mann then proceeds to give his version of the plan of 
the "conservatives." I will place it side by side with their 
own, and leave it without comment : 



" But in interesting children, 
much depends upon the modes of 
teaching. It is not necessary to 
teach the alphabet invariably from 
the vertical column. Letters may 
be made upon the black-board ; 
and the children may be allowed 
to make them on the slate, or on 
the board. Again, the teacher 
may be supplied with small pieces 
of card, each containing a letter ; 
or, with metallic letters which 
may be handled. Let these be 
kept in a small box or basket, 
and when a class is called upon 
to recite, let the teacher hold up 
one of these letters. One of the 
class utters its name ; let him 
then be required to utter its power 
also. The same should after- 
wards be exacted of the whole 
class, in concert. The teacher 
should then give the letter to the 
successful pupil. Let this exer- 

d 



" The plan of the ' conserva- 
tives ' is this. Take a basket con- 
taining two or three hundred 
chestnut burrs, and catch a child. 
Give the child neither taste nor 
foretaste of a chestnut, and say 
nothing to him of the savory con- 
tents in the interior of the burr. 
Lest a ' grand mistake ' should 
be committed, and an improper 
' rank assigned to pleasure,' say 
nothih'g' to the child of those 
qualities or properties of chest- 
nuts, which can give pleasure to 
his palate, and put pennies in his 
pocket ; but give him a burr, 
whose closely-knit seams neither 
sun nor frost has begun to open. 
Command him to open it with his 
fingers. He refuses. Scold him. 
He takes it into his hands, but 
cries. Whip him. His fingers 
bleed, and still the burr is not 
loosened. Whip him again. Re- 



26 



peat it, if necessary, four times a 
day ; and continue tliis regimen 
until he shall be willing to save 
his back at the expense of his 
digits. This, according to the 
above happy illustration, is the 
' old method ' of teaching chil- 
dren to love chestnuts, and to go 
abroad voluntarily to gather them 
by satchels-full." — Reply, p. 106. 



cise be repeated till all the letters 
are distributed. The pupils now, 
one by one, return the letters to 
the teacher, who counts the num- 
ber belonging to each, and awards 
praise where it belongs. Chil- 
dren may be deeply interested in 
exercises of this kind, and at the 
same time be laying the founda- 
tion for a thorough course of 
instruction in reading. Then, let 
the teacher present some two or 
three letters, so arranged, as to 
spell a familiar word ; as ox, cat, 
dog. The pupils should be re- 
quired first, to utter the names of 
the letters thus arranged ; next, 
their powers ; then, to join those 
powers into the audible sign which 
will call to mind the object 
named." — Remarks, p. 94. 

The Secretary continues his perversions, by quoting and 
commenting upon the following passage, from the 97th page 
of the " Remarks " : 

" Simple analogies may be pointed out to the child, which will aid 
him, not a little, in determining the correct sound to be given to the 
letters. In monosyllables ending with e mute, the vowel, almost 
without exception, is long, or like the name-sound. So when a syl- 
lable ends with a vowel, especially if accented, that vowel is long. 
The vowel a, in monosyllables, ending with IT, has, generally, the 
broad sound. A monosyllable, ending with a single consonant, con- 
tains, usually, a short vowel. These are only a few of the various 
analogies which may be. pointed out, and which will enable the 
learner, in most cases, to give the correct sound." — Remarks, p. 97. 

Suffice it to say, that in his comments upon this passage, 
the Secretary holds up to ridicule — ridicule it would be, but 
for his denial — the most obvious analogies which pervade our 
language. Intent on making out a case, and bringing down 
a laugh upon the " Thirty-one," he not only presents a cari- 
cature of the whole subject, but seems reckless of the reputa- 
tion of his best friends. He would lead us to suppose, that 
nothing but stupidity in the extreme, would ever induce one 



27 

to suggest simple analogies as a guide to children, because, 
forsoolh, there are some exceptions. What rule of syntax is 
not followed by a list of exceptions?- Is the rule useless, 
therefore? What principle in etymology, or, in fact, in 
either of the four departments of grammar, is without excep- 
tion ? The Secretary might as well -have aimed his ridicule 
and sarcasm at the whole study of language, as thus to have 
distorted the most obvious principles of orthography. The 
truth is, analogy is our chief guide in the study of language 
throughout all its departments. 

Was Mr. Mann, while employing such unkind and harsh 
language in relation to this subject, aware that his stric- 
tures apply with equal severity to his own best friends, — 
" those with whom he agrees " ? Will he read once more 
the preface of the Primer, especially that part of it in which 
it is said, " Very young children may be assisted by those 
analogies that can be detected by the eye," and then observe 
on whom this abuse is resting ? Mr. Pierce, in the passage 
already quoted, claims analogy as the grand help to memory 
in learning whole words ; and without its aid, it would require, 
as it seems to me, almost " an antediluvian longevity " to 
acquire such a stock of words as he believes children may 
learn in this way. Hear him. " Even were it a work of 
mere memory, I believe they will succeed. But it is not a 
work of mere memory. Memory will be aided by analogy. 
An ingenious child, I will say a child of average curiosity 
and quickness of apprehension, will discern analogies in 
words, and take advantage of them. For instance, when he 
is familiar with the words ' fan,' ' pat,' — from these he can 
and would make out what to call the word ' pan,' the first 
part of which is like the first part of ' pat,' and the last part 
like the last part of ' fan.' So from ' man ' and ' hat ' he 
could make out what to call ' mat ; ' from ' depart,' ' impress,' 
by comparison, he could learn to name ' impart.' Suppose 
him to be familiar with the words 'fly' and 'trap' and 
' mouse ; ' he would have little difficulty in making out the 



28 

combination ' fly-trap ; ' and when he had learnt this combi- 
nation, none at all in determining what to call the combina- 
tion, 'mouse-trap.' All this might be done with very little 
aid from the teacher, by calling the attention of the learner to 
the general form or resemblance of the words, without a 
knowledge of either the names or the powers of the letters. 
Thus, to some extent, analogy might be brought in to the 
aid of memoryP And so might the sound of the vowel in 
each syllable be determined in a similar manner. And 
yet Mr. Pierce knows full well that his analogies will 
often fail. " Let us suppose a simple case, — such a one 
as might occur in the first reading lesson ever given to a 
child." We will suppose him already familiar with such 
words as '■ cow^ '"play^ '' do^ Ho^ '■ tlien^ '•three;'' the 
first part of each being the same as that of the words 
which are to follow. He reads this sentence, ' I have a 
cough.' Now, according to Mr. Pierce's " directions," he 
would be able to read the following : ' Father bought a 
plough.^ He reads, ' Father bought a ploff.^ But he is 
corrected, and made to follow public usage, and not the 
instructions of his teacher. Coming soon to the word 
dough, in the sentence, ' The dough is in the pan,' which 
may be his next lesson, and aided by analogy he reads, ' The 
dow is in the pan.' ' No,' says the teacher ; ' though analogy 
will aid the memory, yet, in this case, you must say do.'' In 
the next lesson, the word tough occurs, and though his 
patience may not yet be exhausted, he will find it tough 
enough before he gets through with the whole family of 
oughs. He reads, ' The bark is very toff.^ ' Try again.' 
' The bark is very toJ ' Not so,' says the teacher, ' follow 
analogy.' He tries again. ' The bark is very tou.^ ' Not 
quite, my child ; once more.' ' The bark is very too,'' — for 
he hopes he has now got through. But he must be told that 
the word is pronounced tuff. Such are some of the aids to 
ijnemory. I might fill pages with such exceptions. Mr. Mann 
may call it ridicule or not ; it is an exact parallel to his 



29 

own treatment of the subject of analogies. Yet, would he 
discard analogy entirely, in teaching children whole words, 
and thus differ from "those with whom he agrees"? One 
would suppose so from the following passage on page 109 of 
the " Reply : " 

" I have been told by one of the best teachers in Massachusetts, as 
a fact within his own personal knowledge, that the student of a cer- 
tain college, entering a district school for the first time in his life, 
and entering, too, in order to keep it, and finding there a child who 
did not know a letter of the alphabet, took its book, marked off the 
first six letters, and, without telling the name of one of them, set the 
child to learn them for its first lesson. Which of the above modes 
would prove most helpful and intelligible to a child, it is not easy to 
determine." — Reply-, p. 109. 

Mr. Pierce must feel that he is receiving a doubtful com- 
pliment at the hand of the Secretary ; for, at one time he is 
the very perfection of an instructer, having " done more 
for the cause of education than the reputed author of that 
[the first] section could ever do, though every atom in his 
corporiety were converted into a schoolmaster, and all should 
labor till the 'crack of doom;'" — at another, he is made 
to appear stupidity incarnate. How he can rest in silence 
and allow Mr. Mann to pervert his publicly-expressed 
opinions, as he has done, is, to me, matter of surprise. 
But this is not the only feature of this perversion. The 
passage in question is one of Mr. Mann's " nuclei." Even 
the casual reader must have observed that this subject of 
analogies was not mentioned in the " Remarks," as con- 
stituting an essential part of the argument. It was intro- 
duced in connection with the fourth objection to the " new 
system," found on the 96th page of the " Remarks." 
That objection is, that "the new system fails to accomplish 
the object which it proposes." The objedion was sustained 
by showing that the anomalies of the alphabet are carried 
into the formation of words, rendering them even more 
anomalous than letters. It was further illustrated by the 
equivocal words with which the language abounds. In con- 
nection with this last, it was conceded that the context might 



30 

aid the. child in determining the meaning of such words as 
pound, for example. It was claimed, also, as an offset to this, 
that simple analogies would aid children in determining the 
sounds of letters. 

If the Secretary denies this, then the objection already 
named, in its most unmitigated form, makes against the 
" new system." And whether he admits or denies, he can- 
not escape the dilemma into which he has thrown, not only 
himself, but his friends, by thus magnifying into importance 
mere exceptions to general rules. 

On page 111 of the " Reply," is the following passage, 
quoted from the " Remarks," with the Secretary's comments : 

" Let the reader be informed that ' The Mother''s Primer,'' which 
begins with words, was introduced, as appears from the vote of the 
Boston Primary School Committee, Nov. 7, 1837, and that the second 
annual repoi't of the Secretary of the Board of Education, bears 
date Dec. 26, 1838, leaving an interval of about one year only, for 
the trial of the new system. Whether a trial during so short a 
period, amidst the novelty always attending a change, is sufficient to 
warrant the assertion that ' it is found to succeed better than the old 
mode,' we will submit to the judgment of any candid mind." — Re- 
marks, pp. 101-2. 

" Of any candid mind ! " exclaims the Secretary. " Hear 
facts! On the 2d day of August, 1836, — almost two years 
and four months before Dec. 26, 1838, — the Primary School 
Committee passed the following vote : 

'Voted, — That such teachers as may be disposed to use Gal- 
laudet's Mother's Primer, for teaching the alphabet, may do so in the 
way of experiment, and report to the district committee their opinion 
of its value.' " 

But a word or two on this point is necessary. Mr. Mann, 
in his Second Annual Report, says : " The mode of teaching 
words first, however, is not mere theory ; nor is it new. It 
has now been practised for some time in the Primary Schools 
in the city of Boston, — in which there are four or five thou- 
sand children, — and is found to succeed better than the old 
mode." I have italicized the portion to which I wish to 
direct particular attention. " The Mother's Primer " was in- 
troduced into all the Boston Primary Schools, Nov. 7, 1837. 



31 

Permission to any one who was disposed to use it, was 
granted by a vote passed August 2d, 1836. And from the 
report of the Primary School Committee, submitted before the 
general introduction of the book, it appears that they had 
" caused the experiment to be made in several of the schools ; " 

— not all, but several. Now, Mr. Mann, in his Second 
Annual Report, must have referred to its general introduc- 
tion into all the Schools, Nov. 7, 1837 ; otherwise, by men- 
tioning the whole number of children in the Primary Schools, 
he intended to claim for it, previous to that date, a wider cir- 
culation than it really had. Believing him incapable of such 
deception, and of such want of candor, I cannot see how one 
could place any other construction upon it, than that of which 
he so unjustly complains. If he claims, as he seems to do 
in his " Reply," that the experiment had been tried for 
" almost two years and four months," {Reply, p. Ill,) in all 
the " Primary Schools in the city of Boston, — in which there 
are [were] four or five thousand children," {Second Annual 
Report,) the reader will at once see that the statement is 
incorrect ; the book had been introduced into all the schools 
for " about one year only," as stated in the " Remarks." Yet 
Mr. Mann says : 

" My ' hasty conclusion,' therefore, was not founded on a trial ' of 
about one year only,' but on a trial of more than two years, which 
afforded full time for an experiment upon half a dozen successive 
classes. Such, to say nothing of moral qualities, are the ' patient 
investigation and keen discrimination ' of the Thirty-one, in ascer- 
taining and averring facts, on which to arraign a fellow-citizen for 
precipitancy in forming his judgments, and incapacity in the dis- 
charge of public duties. Any comments or epithets, applied to this, 
however severe, would only lighten the crushing weight of the facts." 

— Reply, p. 112. 

How kind in him to spare his epithets ! I agree with him 
in not attempting to " lighten the crushing weight of the facts ! " 

He says, p. 113 : 

" In relation to the charge on page 76, that I do not know the dif- 
ference between the name and the power of a letter, — as it could 



32 

have been intended for nothing but Insult, I pass it by with the single 
remark, that if the Thirty-one treat their respective pupils, in the 
daily routine of the school-room, with a tithe of the superciliousness 
and injustice, with which the first three sections of the 'Remarks' 
uniformly treat me, it is no wonder that, in order to preserve their 
ascendency in school, they are obliged to put in practice the inexora- 
ble doctrines respecting ' School Discipline,' contained in the fourth." 
— Reply ^ p. 1 13. 

A reply which meets this charge most fully, —throughout 
its whole length and breadth, — is, that it was never preferred 
against him, either on the 76tl), or on any other page. I 
never accused him of not knoiving " the difference between 
the name and the power of a letter." I did allege, that, in 
his argument for the " new system," he had confounded the 
name-sound of a letter with its power ; and I sustained 
the charge by abundant quotations from his own writings. 
Whether he knew this difference or not, is altogether another 
question. Even if he did not, it would be no disparagement 
to him. Every man is not expected to be perfectly familiar 
with the details of every branch. But I submit whether, 
even then, it would be courteous or kind in him to accuse of 
insult the one who should disclose to him errors resulting 
from such ignorance. (See " Reply," p. 6.) But suppose, 
as he more than intimates, that he does readily distinguish 
the name and poioer of the letters, did he carelessly or pur- 
posely confound them ? If the former, candor would require 
an acknowledgment of it ; if the latter, it affords but a sad 
commentary on his' fairness in the discussion of grave educa- 
tional questions. 

Mr. Mann has reserved for his " peroration," the case of 
the girl mentioned on the 99th page of the " Remarks." As 
this case has been fully discussed in a Report of the Associa- 
tion of Masters, recently published, I have only to refer the 
reader to that Report. It contains, also, a correction of some 
of the mis-statements found in the Report of a Sub-Com- 
mittee of the Primary School Board, which Mr. Mann has 
copied into his " Reply." 

It yet remains for me to notice the " new system " in its 



33 

newest aspect. Mr. Mann accuses me of misrepresenting 
the one which he and his friends have advocated, and with 
what justice the reader has seen. But grant, for the present, 
that the plan which is presented in the " Reply " is the one 
which he has advocated for the last seven years ; and grant, as 
he claims, that it bears no resemblance to the one which the 
" ' Remarks ' assail " ; and it follows, of course, that I have 
done him injustice, but far less than he has done himself, as 
I shall soon show. 

That feature of the " new system " which constitutes its es- 
sential characteristic, as heretofore explained, is this : The word 
is invariablij to be learned, not by combining its letters or spell- 
ing it, but by observing its form — its general aspect; and that, 
too, ivhether the child knows the letters or not. That I may 
not again be accused of misrepresentation, I will cite authority. 
Mr. Bumstead says, in the preface to his " My First School 
Book," " Throughout the whole book, then, let it be an in- 
variable rule to have the attention of the child first directed to 
the ivhole word. Let the first exercise, with every new 

-PAGE, be, the reading OR PRONOUNCING OF THE WORDS. And 

never require a scholar to spell a word before he has so far 
learned it as to be able to read it. Tell him the pronunciation 
over and over again, if necessary, until he remembers it, but 
never waste time in requiring him to spell a word in order to 
find out its pronunciation." It should be recollected that this 
book is preceded by the Primer, which, as has already been 
said, contains about a thousand words. I need not again 
quote Mr. Pierce's language. What could he mean, in 
speaking of a child supposed to be able to read easy senten- 
ces, when he says he can conceive no great disadvantage 
from deferring the teaching of the letters to a still later period, 
if he did not intend to have him continue to learn words 
without the agency of the letters ? What did he mean, when 
he intimated that a steady continuation of this process of 
teaching whole words, would, in time, give a child an exten- 
sive vocabulary ? Nay, what did Mr. Mann himself mean, 



34 

when, in his Second Annual Report he said, after presenting 
his arguments in favor of teaching words before letters, " The 
alphabet must be learned, at some time, because there are 
various occasions, besides those of consulting dictionaries, or 
cyclopedias, where the regular sequence of the letters must 
be known ; and possibly it may be thought that it will be as 
difficult to learn the letters, after learning the words, as 
before." Here, the reasons which he assigns for teaching 
the alphabet at all, are, not that it will aid in learning to 
read, but because the regular sequence of the letters will 
be needed on various occasions besides those of con- 
sulting dictionaries, &c. Now, this plan of learning words 
is precisely like that of learning a symbolic language, the 
Chinese, for example. Hence, I spoke of the method as one 
which converted our language into Chinese. The " new 
system," as thus interpreted, wholly rejects the letters as aids 
to the pronunciation of words; — " never require a scholsir 
to spell a word before he has so far learned it as to be able to 
read it." This being the case, it matters little whether the 
child begins to learn the alphabet after reading a hundred, or 
a, thousand, or ten thousand words. According to the cus- 
tomary method, spelling is involved in reading, in the same 
manner as, in arithmetic, subtraction and multiplication are 
involved in division. But, according to this view of the 
" new system," spelling is entirely disconnected from reading; 
it is a separate, an independent exercise. The child learns to 
read, and then to spell. " A child who has learned to read," 
says Mr. Pierce, " will be tempted to neglect his spelling in 
the perusal of an interesting story." How could he neglect 
his spelling in reading any story, if the very act of reading 
were made to depend, as it ought to do, on spelling ? Mental 
spelling, I mean ; for it is not necessary, after a child has 
advanced a little way in reading, for him to speak the letters 
or even whisper them, as he spells out the word. 

Such was the system that the " Remarks " assailed, and, 
until the objections to it which are therein presented shall 



35 

be answered, I have nothing more to say of it ; T refer 
the reader to the original article. But Mr. Mann says, " I 
have never advocated, or known, or heard of, nor have I ever 
met any person who has ever advocated, or known, or heard 
of, any such mode of teaching the English language to chil- 
dren, as the ' Remarks ' assail." Although I have fully shown 
that this assertion is essentially erroneous — wide from the 
truth — yet I am willing he should define the plan as best 
suits him, provided he will so far settle its boundaries that we 
may know on which side of nothing to find it. Making 
suitable allowance for his extravagant use of the word "awy" 
in the above quotation, T am still to look for a plan differing 
materially from the one just described. From his having 
declared it to be an outrage to say that Mr. Pierce would 
postpone the learning of the letters, and the combining of 
them into words, till after seven hundred whole words have 
been learned, I infer that he would have the child both learn 
the letters and learn to combine them ; that is, learn words by 
spelling them, and that, too, at an early stage of his progress. 
' I infer also, from the expressions, "ten days," "less than a 
hundred words," &c., that this work should be attended to at 
a very early stage; and I know this to be the impression 
which others receive from reading the " Reply." Be it so. 
A plan to be prosecuted for ten days or so, and then to be 
abandoned! If this is the plan, it contains in itself an 
implied acknowledgment of its unsoundness as a system of 
teaching children to read; else why so soon abandon it? 
And it bears on the face of it a most perfect refutation of the 
principal arguments heretofore employed to uphold it. If 
this is all, I am disappointed, — the public are disappointed. 
It turns out to be nothing more than a mere temporary scheme 
to arrest the attention of children and interest them in the 
alphabet and in the school. It is not a system. It deserves 
no such appellation. It is to be ranked among the various 
plans and devices for awakening an interest in the alphabet. 
The letters, unlovely as they are, must be taught and used as 



36 

aids in reading, after all. But what becomes of his array of 
arguments ? I have said that Mr. Mann has done himself 
injustice. The reader shall see it. He has devoted many 
pages in his reports and lectures, to show that the plan of 
teaching words before letters should be adopted, because of 
the imperfections and irregularities of the alphabet. This 
has been supposed to be the strongest argument in support 
of the plan; and, in fact, it would be an argument in favor of 
a plan by which the whole word is invariably to be learned 
first as a single object, and by which the letters are to be 
known, only for the purpose of mechanically executing them in 
writing. For then the child need never learn the different 
sounds of the letters ; he need never regard them as represent- 
atives of sound ; they would be mere marks, like the parts of a 
Chinese word ; and this plan would practically convert the lan- 
guage into Chinese ; the very idea of which Mr. Mann repels 
with indignation. Yet the argument tends directly to uphold 
such a system. But with his recent interpretation of the new 
system, this argument is pow^erless. It might as well be 
brought to uphold the old system ; for, in fact, the two become 
one and the same, after a few days. Mr. Mann thinks that 
something should be done to excite the child's interest before 
presenting him with the letters. Grant it. He thinks a few 
familiar words taught at first is the best way to do it. I think 
it far better to present him with visible objects, and awaken 
in him, by questions and by oral instruction, a spirit of inquiry, 
and thereby make the letters themselves objects of interest. 
The only difference between us now lies in the work of the 
first few days. When the attention is aroused, in his 
opinion, the letters should be learned ; and even before all 
are mastered, the child should begin to combine them. 
(Reply, p. 103.) I believe the same. But the child, whether 
he takes a few whole words first or not, when he begins to 
combine the letters, will find that a, e, i, o, u, p, c, g-, &c., 
become " harlequins " and " masqueraders ;" that is, in either 
event, he will meet with all the difficulties arising from the 



37 

anomalies of the alphabet. Of what avail, then, has been 
all Mr. Mann's labor to prove the manifold advantages of 
the " new system," by magnifying the irregularities of the 
alphabet ? None at all. He has only pictured in glowing 
terms the very difficulties into which his latest " new system " 
would plunge the child. 

And yet this system, he informs us in his " Reply," is " in 
accordance with the course of nature and the order of Provi- 
dence." Did Adam, then, after naming " less than a hun- 
dred" whole animals, thereupon relinquish the plan, and from 
that time onward combine " heads, trunks and legs ; eyes, 
ears and noses ; hair, fur and feathers ; till he had given 
names to all cattle, and the fowl of the air, and to every beast 
of the field ? " Such, certainly, would seem to be the " course " 
— I will not say, "of nature" — which has been recently 
marked out. If the supposed argument from this source has 
any bearing at all upon the subject, it tends to uphold such a 
system as the " Remarks " assailed, and not the one which Mr. 
Mann now advocates. He must, hereafter, to be consistent 
with himself, utterly abandon the arguments drawn from both 
of the above sources. 

As to the utility of teaching a few words for the purpose 
of awakening in the child a desire for reading, I have many 
doubts, Mr. Mann has given on page 102 of the " Reply," 
a vivid picture of it, in which, I suspect, he drew largely from 
a glowing imagination. He says: "By the new method, a 
book is used which contains short familiar words, which are 
the names of pleasant objects, or qualities, or suggest the idea 
of agreeable actions." Witness the following short familiar 
words, taken from the very books which he recommends: — 
immediately, dangerous, untangled, commencement, remember, 
themselves, crocus, daffy, peony, nightingales, strawberries, 
woodbines, agreement, temptation, conscience, industrious, 
frightened, determined, impatience, caterpillar, directly, capital, 
&c. I would not be understood to say, that these are speci- 
mens of the whole ; but that these, and such as these, are 



38 

among those to be learned as single objects. Imagine a child 
attempting thus to learn such a word as '• immediately. "^ Is he 
furnished with a rule, and told to call it immediately, because 
it measures an inch ? 

Yet the elements, the first principles of reading, according 
to Mr, Mann's perversion of Mr. Swan, {Reply, p. 110,) 
are the pronunciation of words. What are elements, any 
schoolboy would inquire, in the pronunciation of words ? 
Letters, unquestionably, unless words are to be learned as 
whole objects. And Mr. Mann was not ignorant that the 
enunciation of these elements constitutes one of the exer- 
cises, — in fact, the characteristic feature of Mr. Swan's 
series of books. Mr. Swan distinctly says, in his Primary 
School Reader, Part I., that the alphabet should first be 
taught. If the Secretary persists in saying that letters have 
no agency in the reading or pronunciation of words, he 
returns at once to that system which the " ' Remarks ' 
assail," and for my answer the reader is referred to that 
pamphlet. But if he acknowledges that the letters should 
have an influence in reading, his attempted retort upon Mr. 
Swan recoils upon himself, and his ridicule of the " mean- 
ingless " particles, the ahs, is wholly gratuitous ; for in learn- 
ing the word incomprehensibility, for example, by the aid of 
its letters it must be divided into its eight syllables, in- 
com-pre-hen-si-bil-i-ty. Now each of these is a " senseless 
particle," and each is to be learned by joining the letters 
composing it. This done, the word is pronounced by 
combining its eight syllables. All words of more than one 
syllable must be learned in this way, unless we return to that 
method which Mr. Mann now disowns. Why, then, this 
crusade against the abs ? With the exception of a few at 
first, ivJiole words must not be learned ; and if the parts are 
taught, unmitigated censure still awaits the luckless teacher ; 
for then the cry of abs^ abs, abs, " senseless particles," " heap 
of nothing," is sounded in his ears. An Egyptian bondage, 
surely ! 



39 

I will allude to but one subject more, and that is the sup- 
port which Mr. Mann claims for the method, on the score of 
authority. True, there are learned and good men who have 
favored this method of leaching. And a system in which, 
nominally, words are taught first, has been introduced into 
a number of towns in the State, but Mr. Mann has omitted 
to mention that in several of these, the plan has been rejected 
and the old one restored. He mentions, among others, Mr. 
Gallaudet, as one of its advocates. It is well known that 
this gentleman was formerly at the head of the Asylum for 
the Deaf and Dumb, at Hartford. He taught reading, to a 
class of persons to whom letters cannot be the representatives 
of sound. Letters, to the mute, are all silent. Words them- 
selves are silent. Thoughts may live and burn in his breast, 
but he cannot utter them ; yet he can communicate them by 
signs. Nay, more ; aided by these, he may learn the written 
symbols of ideas. The name-sounds and the powers of 
letters are alike unknown to him. Hence, to him the letters 
are nothing but a certain number of "marks" — the very 
term which Mr. Gallaudet applies to them in the " Mother's 
Primer." The mute must, therefore, be taught to associate 
the printed word with the idea, and not with the spoken 
word which it represents. 

When the word is thus learned, it may be resolved into 
its "marks ; " and spelling with the mute consists in arranging 
these " marks " mechanically, in the proper order to reproduce 
the picture which he has learned to associate with some idea. 
Now it is not difficult to discover in all this, a striking resem- 
blance to the "new system," as it has been heretofore advo- 
cated. Indeed, I have been told that a gentleman from this 
city visited the Asylum at Hartford, witnessed the methods of 
teaching reading to the deaf and dumb there pursued, and 
suggested the importance of having a book prepared for 
Primary Schools, on the same plan. Whether the " Mother's 
Primer " was made in accordance with that suggestion or 
not, I am unable to say ; but such a book was published, and 



40 

introduced into the Boston Primary Schools, November 7, 
1837. This is the origin of the system in the Boston schools. 
It seems to have been suggested by the modes of teaching 
reading to an unfortunate class of our fellow-beings. Now 
while none shall go before me in commiserating the condition 
of the deaf and dumb ; while none shall rejoice more heartily 
that they can be taught to read, difficult though the process 
may be, yet I protest against treating all children as though 
they were deaf and dumb. On the same principle, and with 
about as good reason, might one urge the general adoption 
of a book prepared with raised letters for the blind, because 
with the sense of touch quickened as if to supply that of 
sight, they are able, at great disadvantage, to feel out the 
words and read a few books. 

I now dismiss the subject. If the " new system " is 
what has heretofore been supposed, it is sufficient that Mr. 
Mann now renounces it. If nothing more is meant by it 
than the " Reply " seems to indicate, it has already received 
too much attention. Other subjects equally important should 
not be neglected. Had not my own opinions been unjustly 
represented by the Secretary, I would not have answered 
him. But self-respect, a sense of justice, and a regard for 
the interests of education, have prompted me to reply. I 
have replied. And while I shall ever stand ready to ap- 
prove whatever measures of the Secretary may serve to pro- 
mote the real interests of education, I am not bound to adopt 
all his theories, or to sacrifice that free expression of opinion 
which is the privilege of every citizen. 

S. S. GREENE. 

Boston, March, 1845. 



REJOINDER 



FOURTH SECTION OR. THE "REPLY." 



It is related by Plutarch, that Lysias wi'ote a defence for a 
man who was to be tried before one of the Athenian tribunals, 
and gave it to his client to be committed to memory. The 
defendant having repeatedly read it for that purpose, came to 
Lysias in despair and said, that in going over it once, the 
speech appeared admirable ; but, that as he went through with 
it the second and third time, it seemed altogether lame and 
powerless. " What if it be," said Lysias, smiling, " you are 
to speak it before the judges but once." 

What a lesson of worldly wisdom and shrewd policy does 
the hint of Lysias convey! What a striking illustration of 
the deep philosophy embodied in that comprehensive line 
from Longfellow's beautiful " Psalm of Life," — 

" — things are not what they seem." 

Most men, in matters not materially affecting themselves, 
have little opportunity or inclination to scrutinize testimony 
carefully, and must, therefore, derive their impressions hastily 
from appearances and rumors. Writers, therefore, as well as 
speakers, and especially upon subjects of local and transient 
interest, may show shrewdness by attempting to make things 
seem what they are not. Such a course, however, is wholly 
repugnant to sound reasoning, and at war with the very pur- 
pose of honest controversy ; which is, to dispel what seems, 



and to reveal what is. The sincere searcher after truth is not 
to hide behind subterfuge, but to reject and expose it. Indeed, 
to impose upon the confidence or credulity of others, even 
where circumstances favor it, is but a mark of short-sighted- 
ness after all ; for, though by adroitness in arranging and 
presenting a case, one may gain for the time a favorable 
verdict, it will but enhance the severity of that reversal which 
must inevitably follow from a full and impartial investigation. 

Common opinion is of two kinds ; that which is prema- 
turely formed, and therefore rather expressed than felt, and 
that which is deliberately and cautiously considered, and 
therefore felt long before it is expressed. The former floats 
upon the surface and acts promptly under the nominal title of 
public opinion ; the latter is a deep and strong under-current, 
less rapid in its movement, but more sure and irresistible, and 
is the real public opinion. Of this alone can it with any 
truth be said, " Vox populi, vox Dei." The former may 
acquit and applaud him whom the latter must condemn and 
censure. 

Mr. Mann's " Reply," especially that section of it which it 
is my painful duty to consider, should, for the credit of its 
author, be read, at most but once, and that cursorily, without 
a knowledge of the article it purports to exhibit and review. 
It is from such a reading, I presume, that it has to some extent 
received the applause of the former kind of opinion. From 
a careful reading, it must unquestionably meet the rebuke of 
the latter kind. This portion of the " Reply," considered as 
a work of the imagination, certainly possesses merit. As 
a specimen of ideal picturing, it has rarely if ever been 
surpassed. It is wholly ideal; I can see nothing of the 
original in his portraiture. No human being, I hope, would 
subscribe to the notions, that the generous and ardent, yet 
charitable Secretary has attributed to me ; sentiments so oppo- 
site to those I expressed, that they virtually deny what I 
advocate, and encourage and assert what I deprecate and 
disclaim ; the picture is not a caricature, but a complete falsifi- 



cation. I defy any sincere lover of truth to examine thor- 
oughly the fourth section of the " Remarks," and interpret 
correctly its spirit, and purpose, and doctrines, and then 
whether agreeing in opinion with me or not, to read the cor 
responding pages of Mr. Mann's " Reply," without indigna 
tion ; I do not say at his personal abuse, for that can be borne 
but at his gross perversion of opinions by me fairly stated 
Not satisfied with false interpretation, and misconception of 
thought, and misapplication of phrases, he has quoted me as 
using words consecutively, which I did not so use ; and the 
worst of it is, not that the verbal phrase is not mine, but that 
the thought it conveys is at war with the grand principle from 
which I reason ; namely, that in moulding character we must 
regard the oneness and wholeness of human nature, in order 
that the development we are seeking may be true and real. 
To account for his quoting as my language a succession of 
words which I nowhere used, and which falsify my whole 
reasoning, is a problem which I have been hitherto unable to 
solve. If a worse instance of perversion, and that too upon 
a subject of higher moment and deeper importance than any 
other excepting religion, can be found, I ask to be referred to 
it, that I may read it, and be justified in raising at least one 
degree from the lowest end of the scale of unfair reviewers, 
one w^hom for years I have been wont to respect as a philan- 
thropist, and look up to as a candid and high-minded man. I 
know not in what terms it becomes me to speak of such out- 
rage. Fully conscious of it as I am, to speak gently of it 
would be treason against truth. I dislike to speak of it at all. 
It is bad enough in a refined community to be the object of 
such literary and moral mangling, and from so high a source, 
and without any just provocation ; irksome indeed is the 
task of exposing it and replying to it. Did I consult my 
inclination alone, I should leave the whole unnoticed. Noth- 
ing but an imperative sense of duty would have overcome 
my reluctance to dwelling upon such unfairness long enough 
to arrange and set before the public the evidence of it. I 



wish not to speak evil of dignities ; but the severity of simple 
truth is not warranted merely but demanded. If the Secre- 
tary has been unjust to me in order to be severe, I must be 
^k somewhat severe upon him that I may not be unjust. 

To my own mind Mr. Mann's "Reply" evinces either 
great blindness or great boldness. It surely is a most 
remarkable production, whether we view it as a philosophical 
criticism, as an exhibition of temper, as a statement of opin- 
ions, as a specimen of taste, or in any other light, save 
that of an ignis fatuus ; which alone could show it to 
advantage, because, from its uncertain glare, it must fail 
to reveal it truly. The " Reply " lacks almost every thing 
that it professes, and is almost every thing that it depre- 
cates and condemns. With high protestations of reverence 
for mercy, it is to the last degree merciless. It eulogizes 
conscience, and yet seems deaf to the voice of conscience. 
It pretends to woo the truth, and yet, as I read many of its 
pages, the conviction forces itself upon my mind that truth is, 
throughout, its doomed victim, struggling to dart her. beams 
through accumulated clouds of misconception and false 
inference. It bitterly complains of garbled and partially 
suppressed quotations, and yet presents the worst specimens of 
garbling, perversion, suppression, and misrepresentation, that 
I have ever had the misfortune to read. I will present the 
cases, and let the reader see and judge for himself. Yet it 
has been pronounced, I would I were not obliged to add 
upon high authority, {the judges had probably read it but 
07ice,) a manly and triumphant vindication of its author ; 
with more justice might it have been called an unmanly and 
vindictive triumph of plausible seemings, over undeniable 
but unpopular realities. It seems as if some writers for the 
public prints fancied that politics was their theme ; and as the 
" Reply " came on the eve of the Boston city election, the 
delusion may be pardoned. Alas ! for the day that shall 
blend educational, too much with political movements ; and 
subordinate the interests of youthful development to con- 



siderations of political preferment. They tend in opposite 
directions. The details of the former should have as single a 
reference to future, as those of the latter proverbially have to 
present results. The politician's motto is too apt to be, videri 
quam esse; that of the educationist should be, esse quam 
videri. That floating opinion which is manufactured for 
political effect, sounds loud for the day, because it is so 
hollow ; and looks extensive, for the very reason that it is so 
superficial ; but when the occasion has passed which gave it 
birth, it is as difficult to tell where it has gone, as it was at 
the time to find out whence it came. Often the harmlessness 
of its life, and the quietness of its death, save from detection 
the infamy and meanness of its origin. Indeed, the whole 
play is understood to be a farce, and the actors, therefore, 
are not held responsible. But education is a subject with 
which ephemeral influences have properly nothing to do. Its 
best fruit is in the distant future. Its developments are real 
in proportion as the evidence of them is hidden and remote. 
All attempts at effect, therefore, by appeals to popular sympa- 
thies and prejudices, must work badly upon education ; 
indeed, an educationist cannot show the unsoundness of his 
views more conclusively than by an attempt to play upon 
either. His duty is, to aim at and encourage a profitable, 
rather than a popular administration of the schools. We 
ought always to show becoming respect for the sympathies 
and prejudices of those with whom we are connected, but to 
fall in with them only so far as they seem to guide us right. 
There is already too much of fawning, and too little of faith- 
fulness, in teaching ; too much manceuvreing, and too little 
moulding of character. 

I have said that Mr. Mann, throughout his " Reply," distorts 
my opinions. He also entirely misjudges my motives. In 
both these respects I have been disappointed. I expected better 
things of him. By what rule of dignified controversy he has 
gone so much into a consideration of the latter, I do not know. 
" Judge not that ye be not judged," is a canon of higher 



6 

authority and wider signification than even the rules of con- 
ducting argument. It is a relief to me to know that I am 
not called upon to judge his motives. I am directly or indi- 
rectly accused of having causelessly assailed him, — him; of 
intending to give him pain ; of buffoonery, and jeers, and 
scoffs, and sneers, in regard to him and his friends ; of eva- 
siveness and tergiversation ; of execrable hypocrisy and 
unblushing avowal of it ; of taking it for granted that what 
he had said of the abuse of corporal punishment was pointed 
at me and my colleagues. All these charges are gratuitous. 
I deny them in fact ; and I further deny that any evidence 
of their truth appears in the language I used towards him. 
The evidence exists only in the construction which he (and 
he alone so far as I can learn,) has been led to put upon it. 
I wrote " reluctantly," as I said, and for no other purpose but 
to defend what I believed to be important principles ; princi- 
ples that lie at the foundation, not of school order merely, but 
of civil and social order ; nay, of Divine order, which must 
include all others ; to do something, if possible, to rescue 
from contempt and reproach doctrines which the united testi- 
mony of history, philosophy, common sense, and revelation 
has established, but which it is the fashion of the times to 
gainsay and oppose. I wrote without the slightest feeling of 
personal hostility, and without any use of disrespectful 
language, towards Mr. Mann or any other person. What, 
then, has brought me into collision with that gentleman ? 
The case was simply this. I presumed to present the evidence, 
abundant as indeed it was, that his writings had a manifest 
tendency to condemn and ridicule in practice, what he admit- 
ted and even argued, in theory. In doing this, I brought into 
juxtaposition, passages embodying contradictory opinions ; 
but I did it with courtesy, fairness, and gentleness; unless it 
be discourteous or unfair to controvert a man's opinions, or 
rather to show that he controverts his own opinions. 

I am charged with having "violently foisted in" the 
subject of deaf and dumb instruction. I presume it 



will not be denied, that Mr. Mann has drawn largely, 
very largely, upon the results of deaf-mute, and blind, and 
" reformatory " instruction, to illustrate what may be done 
in common schools. I followed him, only to show that his 
conclusions were too broad for his premises ; that his 
analogies lacked appositeness. If I failed to make this 
apparent, my logic is at his mercy. The " Reply " does 
not attempt to show any sophistry in that part of my reason- 
ing which aims to establish the unsoundness of his own 
conclusions. It is not true then, that I went out of my way 
to attack him in relation to this subject, or indeed any other. 
It seemed to me pertinent to say and quote as I did, for the 
purpose of showing the antiquity of a recent discovery, (deaf- 
mute utterance) and that it had been long thought to possess 
more of curiosity than of utility.* I think Mr. Mann himself 
will admit, that the merely wonderful results of education 
under peculiar circumstances, are quite inapplicable to com- 
mon schools. 

But I proceed to notice the " Reply " more in detail. It is 
said, page 119, " ' School Discipline,' is the title of the fourth 
section of the ' Remarks.' Intrinsically, this subject is of 
vastly greater magnitude and importance than those which 
precede it." This opinion I by no means dissent from. He 
further says : " I have never taken a one-sided view of this 
subject." Surely not, nor is he so represented in the " Re- 
marks." They rather complain of his taking a it^o-sided 
view of the subject, and thus evading the responsibility of 
adhering firmly to one side. I thought it was pretty clearly 
shown there, that he was standing off and on between govern- 
ment and coaxing, ready to make sail for either, according to 
the direction of the breeze; and it so happens that in this last 
emergency he has landed at the port where some of his 
friends are unwilling to follow him ; and renouncing all 
government, especially self-government, has only reversed the 

* See note at the end. 



8 

parts of his two-fold position, by rather forsaking the theory 
and embracing the practice ; lashing, in his " lenity," with 
unheard-of severity, those whom he but imagines to dissent 
from him, and all for a single offence, even granting it to be 
real. 

After speaking of the importance of the subject, Mr. Mann 
introduces, from his former writings, more than four closely- 
printed pages, in which, indeed, he does not take a view that 
would lead to a one-sided decision. I would thank any one 
who has carefully read them to tell me upon which side of 
the question at issue they weigh ; or whether the arguments, 
or rather admissions, upon the one side, do not balance the 
cautions and discouragements on the other. Does the lan- 
guage, as a whole, leave upon the mind of the reader the 
impression, that the rod has its proper place as a disciplinary 
agency, and may therefore be used without disgrace, for that 
which is proper is not disgraceful ; or does it merely evade 
both the denial and the plain assertion of the doctrine, and 
exhibit the practice as degrading, and as evincing the absence 
of high motives in him who resorts to it? I think those 
pages verify the picture given of Mr. Mann's position, in the 
" Remarks." But let us see how much reason there is for 
such an opinion. I will quote from them a few characteristic 
sentences and phrases to show the " glorious uncertainty " in 
which the subject is left. I will begin at the very first line, 
and wherever I interrupt the continuity of his language, I will 
indicate it by the proper characters, lest I should incur the 
charge of making patchwork sentences from his language. 
A strong reason for scrupulously adhering to this observance 
may be found in the fact, that my opponent needs good 
example in this respect ; since he has, in some instances, 
arranged my words with almost the same degree of license 
as that with which he has explained my meaning. 

" The subject of penal discipline, I hardly dare to mention ; 
especially discipline by corporal punishment. In this department. 



9 

extremes both of doctrine and practice prevail. The public have 
taken sides, and parties are arrayed against each other." — "The 
justifiable occasions, if any, [if aiiy^l for inflicting it ; the mode, and 
emphatically, the spirit, of its administration; its instruments, its- 
extent; the conduct that should precede and should follow it, — are 
questions worthy of the deepest attention. That corporal punish- 
ment, considered by itself, and without reference to its ultimate 
object, is an evil, probably none will deny. Yet, with almost three 
thousand public schools in this State, composed of all kinds of chil- 
dren, with about six thousand teachers, of all grades of qualification, 
to govern them, probably, [probably] the evil of corporal punishment 
must be endured, or the greater ones of insubordination and mutiny 
be incurred." — " But of these solemn topics, it is impossible here 
to speak." — "The fear of bodily pain is a degrading motive; but 
we have authority for saying, that where there is perfect love, every 
known law will be fulfilled. Parents and teachers often create that 
disgust at study, and that incorrigibleness and obstinacy of disposi- 
tion, which they deplore. It is a sad exchange, if the very blows, 
which beat arithmetic and grammar into a boy, should beat confidence 
and manliness out." — "And though it may be too much to say, that 
corporal punishment can be disused by all teachers, with regard to 
all scholars, in all schools, yet it may be averred without exception, 
that it is never inflicted with the right spirit, nor in the right measure, 
when it is not more painful to him who imposes, than to him who 
receives it." — Lecture on Education, yp. 45-8. (See " Reply," pp. 
120-1.) 

"After all other means have been tried, and tried in vain, the 
chastisement of pupils found to be otherwise incorrigible, is still 
upheld by law, and sanctioned by public opinion. But it is the last 
resort, the ultimate resource, acknowledged, on all hands, to be a 
relic of barbarism, and yet authorized, because the community, 
although they feel it to be a great evil, have not yet devised and 
applied an antidote. Through an ignorance of the laws of health, a 
parent may so corrupt the constitution of his child, as to render 
poison a necessary medicine; and through an ignorance of the laws 
of mind, he may do the same thing in regard to punishment. When 
the arts of health and of education are understood, neither poison 
nor punishment will need to be used, unless in most extraordinary 
cases." — Fourth Annual Report, p. 55. (See " Reply," p. 121.) 

" As civilization has advanced, the wheel of torttn-e has been 
arrested, and the instruments of terror and affright have ceased to be 
used, as stimulants to duty or motives to obedience ; — nay, the pro- 
gress of civilization is measured by the extent to which, with equal 
efficacy, the higher motives have been substituted for the lower, in 
the government of men. Any person, therefore, at the present day, 
who is acquainted only with the lowest in the whole scale of motives, 
— who, in establishing his authority, begins back where the brute 

b 



10 

begins, and where the savage begins, can have no approvable 
capacity for the government of a school. And can the school 
comnaittee, who have not made a single inquiry of the candidate 
respecting his views of government, and who have not sought for 
information respecting him from other sources ; — can they give a 
hasty approval, after a brief examination, and then justify themselves 
by throwing the responsibility on the law ? When, on visiting the 
school, they witness the inexpressible injury which is caused by the 
application of false principles, or by proceeding in ignorance of all 
principles ; can they hold themselves fully exonerated from the 
charge of neglect, on the ground that the law requires of them an 
impossibility, when they have approved the candidate without seek- 
ing to ascertain his views on this momentous subject ? " — "I would 
by no means be understood to express the opinion that, tn the present 
state of society, punishment, and even corporal punishment, can be 
dispensed with, by all teachers, in all schools, and with regard to all 
scholars." — " This, however, is certain, that when a teacher pre- 
serves order and secures progress, the minimum of punishment 
shows the maximum of qualifications." — Fifth Annual Report, pp. 
55-8. (See "Reply," pp. 123-4.) 

Having presented this plastic confession of faith, he says, 
in all sincerity I doubt not, and with apparent complacency, 
" These are the views respecting corporal punishment, which 
I have always maintained ; and by which I am willing to 
stand or fall." That he has here well stated his views I readily 
admit. That he is ivilling to stand or fall by them, if such a 
thing were possible, I doubt not. The truth is, he is perfectly 
safe. They cannot bind him. They are likely neither to 
bring him support nor opposition. I deliberately assert, and 
appeal to the judgment of every clear and candid mind for 
the truth of the assertion, that nothing conclusive is said upon 
the question that is not as conclusively unsaid. So far as 
relates to the decision whether corporal punishment is a 
necessary agency, founded in nature, and sometimes (rarely 
indeed under favorable circumstances,) rendered proper by 
the wants of those in whom the moral nature is yet unde- 
veloped, and, therefore, if judiciously and honestly applied, 
equally honorable with other means, three propositions only 
stand out in bold prominence, at once exhibiting the power 
of the reasoner, and settling conviction upon the mind 



11 

of every reader; namely, first, that penal discipline is a 
momentous subject ; second, that the public have taken sides 
upon it; and third, that he hardly dares to mention it. I 
formerly supposed, from a slight acquaintance with Mr. 
Mann's writings, that he held to the doctrine of physical 
coercion as proper in its place, and to some other theories, 
besides an ever-changeful theory of uncertainty ; but from a 
more careful study of his philosophical opinions, I am con- 
strained to believe, that if the contradictory statements were 
brought together, the implied admissions and implied denials 
would neutralize each other, and the product would be a 
most plausible theory of negations, the original elements of 
which, taken separately, might mean almost any thing, but 
the whole of which combined must result in nothing; like 
some elaborate algebraic expressions, with a great show of 
plus and minus terms, but equivalent to zero. 

The " Reply " next displays some rhetoric upon the signifi- 
cation of the phrase, " school discipline," which is all well 
enough in its way. Further on, p. 132, it is said, in relation 
to me, 

"The phrase, 'School Discipline,' — one of the most compre- 
hensive and significant in the language, — he has simplified into 
absolutism on the one side, and passivism on the other. How this 
writer could have objected to the unlimited monarchy of Prussia, I 
cannot conceive, unless it were because the administration of that 
monarchy is so much milder than its theory. His doctrine goes as 
far beyond Prussia, as the free institutions of our own country fall 
this side of it. Indeed, his ideas are a transcript from Turkish and 
Oriental despotisms. His notions of ' authority,' seem to have been 
borrowed from the emperor of China, who, on issuing a late decree, 
denounced the sentence of death against all who should violate it ; 
and added at the end, that all violators should not only be put to 
death, but that they should die willingly.'''' — Reply, p. 132, 

That is amusing and well said. It was pleasant, after so 
much outrage preceding it, and which will be noticed here- 
after, to be provoked to laughter by a well-turned witticism. 
But what shall I say to the emperor's decree? I abominate 
tyranny almost as much as I abominate falsehood. I confess 



12 

I should wish that no penalty might ever be inflicted, without 
being so manifestly just as to produce a conviction of its 
necessity, and a willingness, in a certain sense, to receive it. 

Mr. Mann's criticism upon the title of my article is plausi- 
ble, and not wholly without foundation. I was aware that 
the term " school discipline " had a wide signification, and it 
was not without hesitation that I used it. Yet I was also 
aware that its inappropriateness was more apparent than real ; 
for though my main purpose was to defend principles which 
Mr. Mann had set himself at work to ridicule and oppose, 
still, my language was comprehensive enough to include the 
whole range of means. True, I did not attempt to argue the 
existence of motives that were not supposed to be called in 
question, taking it for granted that all would admit their 
power and importance. I did not think it necessary to prove 
my own conscientiousness by a rhapsody upon conscience in 
general. Indeed, I believe a good conscience void of offence 
is a quiet, faithful monitor, quick and sensitive within, but 
quite unobtrusive ; too busily employed at home to seek occu- 
pation abroad ; acting much and saying little ; so conscious of 
its own agency that it does not imagine it will be called in 
question. An ostentation of morality is the next worst thing 
to an ostentation of religion. Deliver me from a prating 
conscience ; it seldom acts, often professes, but never con- 
fesses. Such a conscience has more of show than of reality. 

But though I did not dilate upon the higher functions of the 
moral nature, I most unequivocally acknowledged their rank, 
and claimed their admission and cultivation. I did not 
encourage appeals to the vanity of children and call it sense 
of duty ; nor recommend addressing the reason before it is 
developed. I have no doubt that a love of approbation is 
often mistaken for a love of duty in children, as is a love of 
popularity in men. Besides, the first act of reason is to 
recognise the duty of obedience, — "a child is not a rational 
being until he obeys." I therefore started with obedience as 
the first step towards the development of the higher faculties 



13 

of the soul ; and to secure it, claimed the admission of 
" an appeal to the most appropriate motives, that a true heart 
and sound mind may select, among all those which God has 
implanted in our nature ; preferring always, [always,] the 
higher to the lower," — (Remarks, -p. 104;) — which plainly 
means, that we should address the highest motives which are 
available ; and since I have distinctly called the fear of physi- 
cal pain the lowest motive, I have virtually said, almost in so 
many words, that the rod is the last thing to be used. While, 
therefore, other means are not dwelt upon, because they are 
not objected to, all appropriate means are nevertheless dis- 
tinctly admitted, and precedence is allowed and claimed for 
the higher. The existence of the lowest motive and the con- 
sequent propriety of its use are argued at length, because, and 
only because, they are assailed ; and, moreover, they are 
defended not for their own sake, but as subservient to the 
noble purpose of developing and perfecting the higher ele- 
ments of the soul ; that, under whatever circumstances, no 
proper means may be left untried towards the attainment of 
so important an end. Nay, more ; to guard against being 
construed to encourage reckless infliction of pain, I gave such 
a definition of the term punishment as would afford no coun- 
tenance to abuse. To make the matter clear, I will here 
quote from the " Remarks " the conclusion of the argument, 
the cautionary definition, and the philosophy of physical pain 
as an agency to effect moral results. The brackets and italics, 
though irrelevant here, will be of use hereafter ; the former 
enclosing passages which the " Reply " omits while it quotes 
the rest. 

" Since, then, fear is most predominant in childhood, being the 
natural concomitant of weakness and dependence, we should take 
advantage of it, and make it subservient to good ends. 

" But if we admit the use of fear to secure obedience, we must 
consequently admit the use of punishment; for nothing can exist in 
an active state without an object upon which to act. [Thus, there 
can be no fear of that, in the existence of which there is no helief 
Here, then, we arrive conclusively at the decision of the great ques- 



14 

tion at issue ; namely, that the doctrine of the use of physical 
punishment has its foundation in nature and necessity. 

" Before proceeding any further, we wish, in order not to be mis- 
understood, to restrict the word punishment to its proper signification ; 
namely, the legitimate infliction of a penalty for wrong-doing, with 
a view to promote the good, either of the individual upon whom it 
is inflicted, or the general good of the community of which he forms 
a part, and to whose welfare as a whole, his own must be, in some 
sense, subservient. All capricious and vindictive acts of violence, 
therefore, under the name of punishment, we set aside as foreign to 
our subject ; inasmuch as they constitute the abuse, rather than the 
use, of what we defend."] — Remarks, p. 136. 

" Punishment is of various kinds. It may be a look only ; it may 
be a word more or less severe ; or it may be a ])rivation ; or a task ; 
or a restraint upon personal liberty ; or a pecuniary forfeiture ; or a 
blow. Whatever it be, it must be disagreeable to the receiver, in 
order to constitute it punishment. Being not persuasive, but com- 
pulsory and retributive, it is at first regarded and treated as an 
enemy ; it thus finds the whole nature in a state of rebellion, and 
inclined to resist ; consequently the infliction of the penalty is imme- 
diately followed by the vexation and chagrin arising from offended 
pride ; the necessity of yielding ; the mortification of being conquered. 
Thus far nothing has been done but to develop and bring to light 
latent evil, \^and reveal it more clearly to the consciousness of its pos- 
sessor ; hut. the final good is not yet attained. At length the unpleas- 
ant scene is past ; the pain subsides ; the blinding infiuence of passion 
ceases ; the quick instinct of self-defence settles into quiet calmness ; 
and after a hasty attempt at self-justification, succeed refection, 
deliberate thought, unioonted self-exainination, and finally, if all is 
right, conviction of wrong-doing, sincere humiliation, repentance ; 
which is the true moral fruit. ' No chastening for the present 
seemeth to be joyous, but grievous ; nevertheless, afterioard it yield- 
eth the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto them which are exercised 
thereby.'' We see here the true moral of the scourge. We see here 
how one person, duly responsible for using means to advance the 
welfare of another beneath him, inflicts physical evil to produce moral 
good ; the act is evil in relation to the physical nature merely, but good 
in relation to the moral. Now since by the law of precedence, the 
former is merged in the latter, the violence of the act is only appa- 
rent ; it is really a moral act, as it springs from a xnoral motive in 
the doer, and aims at a moral result in the subject. It is too common 
to speak of corporal punishment as violence and outrage. But it is 
as much an abuse of language, as it would be to call it an act of 
outrage to rouse an invalid from a refreshing sleep, in order to save 
him from being consumed by the flames. A contest between two for 
mastery, where neither has the right to rule, is an exercise of brute 
force, and may properly be called violence and outrage. But the 



15 

true use of the rod, so far from being similar to this, is its direct 
opposite. It aims to prevent violence, by teaching the necessity of 
subjection. Physical coercion is but the final appliance of moral 
suasion ; a means of arousing the attention to those expostulations 
which should always precede, accompany, or follow it, and of there- 
by saving them from being disregarded."] — Remarks, pp. 138-9. 

This brings us to serious matter; — to a tissue of misrepre- 
sentation for which I know no parallel. Mr. Mann puts 
forth all his strength to attack a doctrine of his own invention ; 
— a doctrine which my argument not only does not establish, 
but virtually and plainly foi'bids. He thus sets up a hideous 
man of straw, as if with a view to gain support and sympathy 
by prostrating it before the eyes of the admiring public. The 
creed he declaims against, I have never acknowledged or even 
thought of. Punishment for its own sake! ]t would answer 
as a penal code for Pandemonium. It contemplates those 
whose motto is, " Evil, be thou my good." No conscience, 
no love, nothing but stripes and torture. The very passion 
for despotism and cruelty. And I am presented as a living 
example of practical devotion to such an inhuman creed, and 
am further pointed at, in no very ambiguous manner, as a 
teacher likely to impair the moral health of my charge, and 
am virtually threatened with the utmost force of his oppo- 
sition. The following is the language to which I now more 
particularly allude. 

" As to the personal gibes and girds, scattered up and down 
through this section, 1 make but a single remark. They were evi- 
dently intended to give me pain ; for there is an air of quiet luxury 
about them, as though their author saw them already inflicting their 
pangs upon my bosom, and was gloating over the spectacle. They 
have given me pain, — nay, anguish ; — yet not on my own account, 
but on account of those children, over whom the same spirit which 
has thus causelessly assailed me, daily presides. But let those per- 
sonalities pass. I will not be drawn aside from an attempt to rescue 
children who are exposed to such moral mutilations, as an observance 
of these doctrines would inflict, though I should be tempted by apples 
of gold, or assailed by darts of fire." — Reply, pp. 143-4. 

Those who, after a careful examination, cannot see that the 
doctrine of the " Remarks " is the direct opposite of that held 



16 

up to merited odium in the " Reply," the furthest removed 
from it possible, will scarcely be convinced by any thing that 
I can write. The very purpose of my writing is to invite 
to such examination. 

The mind of the reader is prepared for the reviewer's inter- 
pretation of the section, by the following graphic language. 

" The intimations of that systenn which had been given before 
were only a few clouds rushing, here and there, athwart an angry 
sky ; — it is here, that the ' Remarks ' introduce us to a frozen mid- 
night, where the light of love is extinguished, and all moral sentiment 
and humanity are congealed. 

" I proceed to make a few extracts, in order to show the pith and 
marrow of this lamentable section. In doing so, I must take them 
mainly from its later pages, for it is so arranged that the illustrations 
come befoi'e the principles, — the application of the argument to me, 
is at the beginning, while the premises are at the end." — Reply ^ 
p. 128. 

And where is the conclusion ? Both the premises and the 
conclusion of the argument, as I understand it, are independent 
of Mr. Mann. The intention was not to apply argument to 
him, (it might be inapplicable,) but to dispose of his seeming 
analogies as irrelevant, so as to leave argument possible. 
The order of the " Reply," I presume, is made in strict 
accordance with the author's views of the " logical principles 
of arrangement." The unauthorized conclusion is at the 
beginning, (or earlier,) the premises do not exist, except by 
false construction, and " the application of the argument [or, 
rather, abuse] to me," is apparent throughout. This arrange- 
ment is fortunate, since the reader needs to have in his mind 
an idea of the horrible doctrine set up, in order to relish and 
sanction the fierce denunciation of its reputed author. I am 
reminded of the Secretary's repeated and emphatic phrase, 
" a case is to be made^ For surely it seems as if a case was 
to be made against my doctrines ; and, indeed, the notions 
of the times rather favored such an attempt. 

Let us now examine the manner in which " abhorrent doc- 
trines" are derived from the " Remarks." This process begins 
on page 130 of the " Reply," to which, as well as to several 



17 

immediately succeeding it, I shall devote especial attention. 
Page 130 is the commencement of particular criticism, and is 
singularly appropriate to usher in those which succeed it. 
What shall be said of its falseness ? This quality, considered 
in connection with the irreverent levity of the concluding 
phrase, renders the authorship of it a most unenviable dis- 
tinction. I hope it may remain unsurpassed by any writer 
professing to aim at truth, or to respect religion. It is melan- 
choly to read it and think by whom it was written ; written, 
did I say ? nay, more ; printed, corrected, and published, and 
sent out to the world. 

The argument starts from authority, and supposing it 
resisted, after appeals have been made to the higher motives, 
claims to address fear. Having thus established the necessity, 
when other motives fail, of appealing to the lowest, it proceeds 
to show that the admission of punishment necessarily follows 
the admission of fear. By turning back to page 13, the 
reader will see, from the italics, that the " Reply " leaves out 
entirely the sentence, — " Thus there can be no fear o( that 
in the existence of which there is no belief;" a sentence so 
explanatory of the preceding as positively to forbid the infer- 
ence which Mr. Mann draws. Pray tell me now, candid 
reader, after glancing over those few lines in question, what 
is it that cannot "exist in an active state without an object 
upon which to act?" Is it not plainly fear, even without the 
aid of the omitted line? And what is the object? A school- 
boy would answer, punishment. " If we admit the use of 
fear to secure obedience, we must, consequently, admit the use 
of punishment ; for nothing can exist," &c. But what says 
the " Reply." 

" Here, then, is the philosophy of School Discipline. Authority, 
Force, Fear, Pain ! The ideas of Childhood and Punishment indis- 
soiubly associated together, because, as it is said, ' punishment' 
cannot ' exist in an active state, without an object on which to act ;' 
and, as ' dependence is the distinguishing feature of childhood, ihe 
kindred doctrine of unconditional submission is more easily taught, 
the earlier it is attempted.' " — Reply ^ p. 130. 



18 

Let it be noticed, that this last sentence, " dependence," &c. 
is taken from another connection, on page 130 of the " Re- 
marks," (the preceding quotation, already verbally false, being 
from the 136th page,) and thus adroitly made to help the 
desired inference, that the " Remarks " advocate punishment 
for its own sake ; that it is desirable, and '-therefore demands 
"objects" (children) upon which to act; — that we consider 
children food for the rod, as Falstaff's men were for powder. 
That is the doctrine which he has the hardihood to attribute 
to me, and which furnishes a topic for so much ranting 
declamation. Can the reader tell how that inference is 
drawn? The man whose mind was prone to suggest such 
an idea, had better not trust himself to use the rod ; or even 
to lash schoolmasters with the pen. But he continues, 

" And, as an appropriate close to the whole, — after the authority 
has been asserted, and the punishment inflicted, and the pain suf- 
fered, — it is said, that 'thus far, nothing has been done but to 
develop and bring to liglit latent evil.' " — Reply, p. 130. 

This is, indeed, " an appropriate close " to the horrible senti- 
ment set forth ; it encourages the search after evil, not to 
eradicate it, but to embrace it as the to xalov. It is made the 
close to my argument, however, only by substituting a period 
for a comma, at the pleasure of the reviewer, and thus cutting 
off the most important clause, and that upon which the moral 
fruit depends ; namely, " and to reveal it more clearly to the 
consciousness of its possessor." Thus, without any authority, 
is a full stop put to that development of good, which a con- 
sciousness of evil should incite us to effect by a conflict with 
evil. It is well for us to consider that a consciousness of evil 
must necessarily precede the rejection of it. " He that con- 
fesseth and forsaketh his sins shall find mercy," — confessing 
before forsaking, and, of necessity, consciousness before either ; 
since we cannot sincerely confess what we do not feel. 
But the thought of punning so seasonably upon the phrase, 
" bring to light latent evil," seems to swallow up every other 



19 

consideration ; and sadly appropriate is the profane wit to 
follow the false construction. Please compare the following 
with what immediately succeeds the word " evil " in the " Re- 
marks," which may be found, commencing with italics, on 
the 14th page of this Rejoinder. 

"As well might the felon who explodes a magazine of gunpowder, 
and destroys the city it was manufactured to defend, say that he has 
only ' brought to light latent evil.' As well might the madman who 
cuts down dikes and lets in the ocean to submerge provinces, with all 
their cities and their cultivation, say that he has only ' brought to 
light latent evil ; ' and that the ' final good is not yet attained.' None 
can bring ' final good ' out of such a course, but He who has the 
power of ' educing good from ill ; ' and surely, if such a philosophy 
is to prevail, and our practice is be conformed to it. He, whose pre- 
rogative it is to bring good out of evil, will be supplied with a super- 
fluity of the raw material upon which to work," — Reply, p. 130. 

I might stop here, for the reader who fully comprehends the 
merits of that page will be sufficiently on his guard. On the 
other hand, to one who views that page as just, (and the 
matter is so handled that a cursory reading may lead to such 
a result,) any thing that follows may seem gentle enough, 
considering to what it is applied. But I proceed, tedious and 
irksome though it be, to point out other perversions. I am 
sorry that I can find little else but perversions to present. 

The " Reply" continues, 

" Authority, Force, Fear, Pain ! These motives, taken from the 
nethermost part of the nethermost end of the scale of influences, are 
to be inscribed on the lintels and door-posts of our schoolhouses, 
and embroidered on the phylacteries of the teachers' garments." — 
" Throughout this whole section, conscience is nowhere referred to, 
as one of the motive-powers in the conduct of children. The idea 
seems not to have entered into the mind of the writer, that any such 
agency could be employed in establishing the earliest, as well as the 
latest relations, between teacher and pupil." — "In two or three 
instances, it is true, some mention is made of higher motives, but in 
so vague and general a way, that they seem to be formulas of speech, 
caught from the society in which the writer may liave moved, rather 
than living, fruit-bearing principles in his own breast. Had he made 
no allusion whatever to the higher regions of the moral world, I 
should have hoped that he might, at some time, be won upwards to 



20 

behold their beauties, and detained there to admire them. But that 
hope he has nearly extinguished, for he has referred to them with 
such indifference and coldness, as to show that they were uncared 
for, rather than unknown." — Reply, pp. 130-133. 

The discourtesy of these latter sentences is equalled only 
by the falseness of the second. What does the Secretary 
mean? Conscience nowhere referred to! That is a bold 
statement. Conscience nowhere referred to, throughout this 
whole section ! Let us see. On the second page of the 
section, in the very statement of the plan, it is said, 

" — We shall attempt to show that all school order, like that of the 
family and of society, must be established upon the basis of acknowl- 
edged authority, as a starting-point; and shall endeavor to maintain, 
not only the right, but the duty to enforce it, by an appeal to the 
most appropriate motives, that a true heart and sound mind may 
select, among all those which God has implanted in our nature ; pre- 
ferring always, the higher to the lower." — Remarks, p. 104. 

That has reference to pupils ; — but what is said about 
teachers ? 

" May their firmness of principle be commensurate, at least, with 
their sensitiveness to reproach ; so that, however much they may 
suffer in their feelings, from the contemptuous sarcasm of those who 
denounce them as brutes and barbarians, they may yet stifle feeling, 
and, listening rather to the dictates of conscience and duty, be guided 
more by the fixed principles of a true scriptural philosophy, than by 
■ the changeful notions of fluctuating experimentalism." — Remarks, 
p. 108. 

Conscience, it is here said, must prevail in spite of the 
dictates of feeling and impulse. Indeed, its office is to regu- 
late and control the affections, and to secure the performance 
of what is right. " Fiat justitia," is its cry. It bids us walk 
with a firm and steady tread in the path of truth and duty, 
whether that path spring up with thorns or be decked with 
roses; whether fortune smile or frown ; whether we meet there 
the cordial sympathy of friends, or are chilled by their cold 
averted glance. Conscience is the highest appeal, and there- 
fore, by the doctrine of the " Remarks," the first to be made, 
and the reader is to be pitied who failed to discover it. 



21 

Again, in reference to all, it is said, 

" If we leave out from our philosophy, any of the constituent ele- 
ments of human nature, we destroy the equilibrium, and well-balanced 
character cannot be formed. We must take human nature as it is." 
— Remarks, p. 125. 

" If we move all mind to action by an appeal to one motive 
mainly, we distort character greatly ; if we appeal to a few leading 
motives, we distort it, though less ; if Ave adopt the principle of over- 
looking a single one even, we may, and, in many instances, unques- 
tionably shall come short of the best results. Every thing is to be 
used as not abusing it. Nothing is to be despised. Emulation, 
alone or principally, for all minds, is very objectionable ; so is fear; 
so is sympathy; so is the pride of intellect; or the pride of virtue. 
So are any or all of them combined, to the exclusion of some other 
principle which as really exists as any of these; for that one, what- 
ever it may be, has its uses, and may in certain individuals be the 
very one which needs strengthening." — Remarks, p. 126. 

Am I told, then, when my aim evidently is to regard the 
integrity of the nature in education, to recognise and profit 
by every element, and am directing my efforts to secure the 
recognition of even the lowest principles, for the sake of the 
integrity and highest development of the whole, am I seri- 
ously told, and in the face of so many distinct specifications, 
that the highest faculty of the moral nature is not even referred 
to ? I thought the spirit was more important than the letter, 
especially in morals. Indeed, in every thing but mere talk, 
utterance is subordinate to language, and both should be sub- 
ordinate to thought. A verbalist may think differently per- 
haps. I have somewhere heard of a literal lady who once 
passed severe censure upon an excellent thanksgiving sermon 
because the ivord thanksgiving nowhere occured in it. 

Again : 

" Care should be taken not to confound generosity with justice." — 
Remarks, p. 129. 

" The governed is to obey from a sense of obligation." — lb. 

How can we lead children to distinguish between gener- 
osity and justice, and to obey from a sense of duty, without 
an appeal to conscience ? 



22 

What are " those expostulations which should always pre- 
cede, accompany, or follow it," [punishment,] {Remarks, p. 
139,) but appeals to the conscience ? 

The manner in which I wrote shows more respect for the 
conscience than any mere avowal of its importance could 
have done. There is no proposition in which I acknowledge 
my belief in Christianity, or even the existence of a God ; 
yet I think both ideas are pretty strongly implied. I gave 
precedence to the higher motives in the outset. Was it neces- 
sary to keep repeating this statement, as if I doubted it myself. 
An unqualified admission is rather weakened than strength- 
ened by dwelling upon it. Yes, is the strongest assent, and 
No, the strongest denial, in those who mean what they say. 

" The most pitiless part of this doctrine of absolute ' authority ' 
and unconditional ' subordination ; ' and of force, and fear, and pain, 
as the means of securing them, is, that it makes no exception of 
sex, or age, or disposition." — Reply, p. 132. 

The phrase, " and vnthout making any exception as to age, 
sex, or disposition,^' occurs again, in italics, on the 144th page. 
Let us see how far it is true. What means " an appeal to 
most appropriate motives that a true heart and sound mind 
may select, among all those which God has implanted in our 
nature ; always preferring the higher to the lower ; " if not to 
except from the fear of pain those in whom higher motives 
may be effectually addressed ? Indeed, the most effectual way 
to give force and dignity to high motives, is to make proper 
use of the low when they are appropriate. " Physical coer- 
cion is but the final appliance of moral suasion ; a means of 
arousing the attention to those expostulations which should 
always precede, accompany, or follow it, and of thereby 
saving them from being disregarded." — {Remarks, p. 139.) 
What means this ? 

" Its [education's] office is to strengthen by exercise and culture, 
that which is too weak and to weaken by disuse and opposition, that 
which is too active and strong ; to subdue the lower to the higher 



23 

principles, and to produce thus the most perfect and harmonious 
whole." — Reply, p. 126. 

And this ? already lugged in to help out a false inference. 

" Moreover, since dependence is the distinguishing feature of 
childhood, the kindred doctrine of unconditional subordination is more 
easily taught, the earlier it is attempted." — Reply, p. 130. 

And this? especially the last two periods : 

" Now the lowest kind of fear has for its object physical pain. It 
is this that prompts us, in the earliest stages of our development, to 
the use of care to protect ourselves from harm. Deprive a child of 
the fear of receiving injury, and, if he were allowed freedom of 
action, his physical existence even, would be constantly endangered. 
We see then how indispensable is this sentiment, at that early age, to 
preserve one safe till the period arrives when he will be fitted for the 
exercise of those of later development, and which, as life advances, 
are to connect him with higher and wider relations. In seeking to 
promote the welfare of a whole, we must have reference to all its 
parts ; and if it is in its nature progressive, we must deal with each 
element at the proper time of its development, and to such a degree 
as the case demands. We must begin at the foundation and work 
step by step along, keeping as far as possible the end in view, but 
always adapting our means to present conditions." — Remarks, p. 
135. 

If those sentences do not imply, nay require, discrimination, 
distinction, exception, in regard to age, sex, and disposition, 
and indeed every variety of condition, I should like to have 
the Secretary, in the plenitude of his philological wisdom, 
and the exactness of his unerring logic, point out and demon- 
strate what they do mean. He has given us to understand 
that he knows the " etymology of the word atmospheric," — 
will he favor us with the rules of construction by which he 
converts the comprehensive meaning of those periods into a 
nonentity ? If all my testimony is to be ruled out, the least I 
can ask is, to be shown how it is done. Can we learn from 
him the art, not only of constructing sentences without 
meaning, but of inverting and even annihilating the meaning 
of those constructed by others. Happy faculty I When we 
reflect how many wretched books have been written, one 



24 

cannot help coveting the complacent satisfaction to be derived 
from thus nullifying their wicked and subversive tendencies. 
But he continues, in immediate connection, 

" Every one knows that there are children, especially females, in 
all refined communities, who go to school wilh hearts overflowing 
with respect and trust, and a feeling that borders almost upon rever- 
ence, for their teacher. Their good-will and obedience are salient, 
and they leap forth, unbidden, to meet the demands even of a harsh 
and unsympathizing master, as the early spring flowers burst out 
from the warm, vital energies that reside beneath the surface, to melt 
the snows that would congeal them. But this spontaneous obedience 
is not enough. The doctrine of the ' Kemarks '' is, that a case is to 
le made with such children." — Reply, p. 132. 

Need I deny the justice of that last assertion ? A case is to 
be made with such children ! Who said or intimated that a 
case was to be made wilh such children ? T did not. I 
have said the opposite of that, (Retnarks, p. 128 ;) " We admit 
that the easiest, and where the doctrine of subordination is not 
questioned, the best way to gain a compliance with our 
wishes is, to allure to it by kind treatment and agreeable 
manners." 

The " Reply " continues, quoting from the " Remarks." I 
will quote more fully to show the bearing of the passage, and 
enclose in brackets what the " Reply " does not quote. The 
italics mark a passage which I beg the reader to notice. 

" [The present is an age remarkable for the ascendency of sym- 
pathy over the sterner virtues. Kindness, powerful, overwhelming 
in its proper sphere, has assumed a false position ; lias stepped 
beyond the limits of its legitimate control, and, having wrought such 
mighty magic with human misery and guilt through the benevolent 
labors of Howard, Fry, Dix, and a host of others less widely known 
but equally deserving, seems almost ready to be crowned the omnipo- 
tent regenerator of the race, to purge the heart from sin and sanctify 
it unto holiness. But, in our admiration of the eflScacy of one 
agent, we must not despise or overlook the value of others. Kind- 
ness cannot supply the place of authority, nor gratitude that of sub- 
mission. We admit that the easiest, and where the doctrine of 
subordination is not questioned, the best way to gain a compliance 
with our wishes is, to allure to it by kind treatment and agreeable 
manners ; but we deny that such compliance is any test of the spirit 



25 

of obedience.] True obedience [is a hearty response to acknowl- 
edged authority. It] does not voluntarily comply with a request, but 
implicitly yields to a command. When the mandate has gone forth, 
obedience does not obtain, till the will of the subject is merged com- 
pletely in the will of the ruler. [Sympathy may render obedience a 
pleasant act, and indeed may alone produce a prompt compliance, 
when simple authority would be powerless.] Care should be taken 
not to confound [generosity with justice,] voluntary consent with 
unconditional surrender. [External actions which are alike, often 
spring from motives which are widely different, and even opposite."] 
" The ruler [?'s to demand suhmission, not to himself^ from a feel- 
ing of personal superiority^ hut to the station he fills, from a respect 
in his own mind for the abstract relation of order and authority. 
His own right he may waive, '■not rendering evil for evil, but con- 
trariwise blessing.'^ But the authority vested in the relation he 
sustains, he may not thoughtlessly yield up ; it is not at his disposal. 
He] governs not for his own sake, but to teach obedience to others. 
The governed, on his part, is not, from sympathy, and affection, and 
harmony of opinion, to obey the individual, but the authority residing 
in him rather, from a sense of obligation." — Remarks, pp. 129. 

How can the reader of the above fail to see that my pur- 
pose was to define obedience, as such? Mr. Mann quotes 
just enough of my language to show that I would claim 
obedience, if need be, in spite of " sympathy and affection," 
&c., but leaves out those parts which remind the reader that I 
am only seeking to guard against confounding things which 
appear alike, and mistaking that for obedience which is but 
the semblance of it. The superficial manager, skilled in 
moving minds by addressing their predominant tendencies, 
will incline to the use of those means which will most easily 
and readily accomplish external results. He will address the 
vanity of those whose vanity is already excessive; abuse the 
fears of the timid; nurse the self-complacency that needs to 
be rebuked ; and stimulate the ambition of those whose 
strongest impulse already is to surpass others. To secure 
from children, by artifice, a course of conduct which plain-deal- 
ing will not effect, is at best a questionable policy. One who 
has the heart to do it, may indeed cheat the wilful inio acts of 
obedience by cunningly cherishing in them a hidden spirit of 
disohedience ; but in doing so, he really strengthens what he 
d 



26 

seems to resist. We should especially reject and repel flattery 
in our intercourse with the young. Its tendency is bad in 
proportion as its agency is effectual, since those who relish it 
the rriost are the most likely to be injured by it. Its essential 
element is falsehood ; and, therefore, it must impair the per- 
ception of truth in both giver and receiver. 
But let us follow Mr. Mann, 

" The child, then, animated by sentiments of duty and love, and 
seemg the reasonableness of the teacher's requisitions, is not to obey 
them ' from sympathy, and affection, and harmony of opinion,' but 
rather from a knowledge of the ' authority that resides ' in the teacher, 
and from the punishments which, as fear forewarns him, will back 
it." — Reply, p. 133. 

What nonsense is here attributed to me! to say nothing of 
the flagrant injustice done to my sentiments. The child ani- 
mated with a sense of duty and love, and seeing the 
reasonableness of the teacher's requisitions, is not to obey 
them from sympathy, and affection, and harmony of opinion ! 
Such a child cannot but obey from sympathy, and affection, 
and harmony of opinion. Obedience is the very key-note of 
the sweet harmony that reigns in such a soul ; if that be not 
true, jarring dissonance at once grates upon all its fine sensi- 
bilities. Obedience with him is the dictate of feeling ; his 
reasonableness has blended all his motives in beautiful unison 
for the product of good moral results. He has learned to 
recognise the first duty of a dependent creature, — obedience, 
■ — and to comply with a rightful command sends an instant 
delight through his whole moral nature. Obedience, sym- 
pathy, affection, are one with him ; they move together to 
the same end, — duty and truth. His maxim is, "choose 
what is most fit, custom will make it the most agreeable." 
He has reasoned from duty to affection, till affection sponta- 
neously moves him to duty. Whoever seeks for the sym- 
pathy of such a one in acts of disobedience, will find but a 
feeble response, if he do not meet repulse and rebuke. Re- 
spect for authority and truth, is a deeper element in good 



27 

character than some are apt to imagine. But it is repeated 
again, with emphasis, 

" A cose is to he made with such children, to see if there is any 
feeling of justice, or independence, or manliness in them ; or whether 
they are mere slaves and dastards, who, in the language of another 
part of the ' Remarks,' are to ' work ' with ' fear and trembling.' " — 
Reply, p. 133. 

Another instance of torturing perversion ; to see and under- 
stand which, is to frown upon it. If I am thought to pass too 
lightly over such misrepresentations, let me ask what language 
could be adequately severe ? I need only exhibit them. St. 
Paul says, " Work out your own salvation with fear and 
trembling." In attempting to point out want of apposileness 
in one of Mr. Mann's " striking analogies," I said, 

" In imparting moral and mental culture, the teacher's influence 
may be modified by a thousand varying circumstances, both seen and 
unseen, external to the child, and inherent in him, over which the 
teacher can exercise but a very limited control. We can never say, 
in the moulding of character, these are our materials, and these are 
our circumstances, and such and such will be our results. Educa- 
tion, here, with all her boasted powers, must 

' Learn to labor and to wait ; ' 
leaving much, in faith, for the child to work out himself, with fear 
and trembling." — Remarks, p. 118. 

The expression " leaving much, in faith, for the child to 
work out himself," suggested to ray mind, by verbal associa- 
tion merely, the remaining words, " with fear and trembling." 
That passage has specific reference to moral and mental 
culture, and so far from laying stress upon hasty, coercive 
measures, sets forth the necessity of leaving- much, in faith^ 
of sowing good moral seed and leaving it to germinate and 
bring forth fruit in the future. The whole connection in 
which it stands, gives not the slightest ground for the 
suspicion even, that the subject of physical pain was present 
to my mind ; yet see what has been made of it. This cap- 
tious manner of ringing changes upon my phrases, converting 



28 

serious thoughts into nonsense and worse than nonsense, in 
order to sneer at and ridicule them, is truly deplorable. 

Again resounds that dreadful cry, — those words arranged 
and set in order by the reviewer (they are not mine) to give 
effect to his own distortions. They are repeated not less than 
six times in the course of the section ; as if their frequent use 
might render them appropriate. 

" Authority, Force, Fear, Pain ! These are the four corner- 
stones of 'School Discipline.' Not Duty, Affection, Love of 
Knowledge, and Love of Truth ; but Power, Violence, Terror, 
Suffering ! 

" Where, through this whole section of the ' Remarks,' is there 
any recognition of the sentiment of that disciple, whom Jesus loved 
above the rest, — ' There is no fear in love ; ' ' Perfect love casteth 
out fear, because fear hath torment ; ' ' He that feareth is not made 
perfect in love'? Where is there any recognition of what the 
Apostle to the Gentiles declared, — 'Love is the fulfilling of the 
Law ; ' ' He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law ' ? Where, — 
to approach the very source of Christian faith, — where is any defer- 
ence yielded to the words of the Saviour, 'If ye love me,' — not, if 
ye fear me, but, — 'If ye love me, keep my commandments'.? 
And again : ' He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he 
it is that loveth me.' And again : ' If a man love me he will keep 
my words.' And again : ' He that loveth me not, keepeth not my 
sayings.' 

" The poet, at once the most philosophical and spiritual in our 
language, has said, 

' Love and love only is the loan for love. ' 
But all this is discarded in the philosophy of the Thirty-one. The 
brief, but terrible motto, on their banner is, Authority, Force, Fear, 
Pain ! These are the hideous ministers who are to stand around the 
'ruler' of the schoolroom, — to wait upon the voice and do the bid- 
ding of one more hideous than themselves." — Reply., pp. 133-4. 

The " Remarks " imply the excellency and power of love^ 
just as they do the supremacy of the conscience. As con- 
science, being the highest element in the moral nature, is 
allowed precedence of all other appeals, so " that perfect love" 
which "casteth out fear," being the highest attainment in 
the spiritual nature of man, — the end for which we live, 
unless we live in vain, — includes and sanctions all the means 
that may properly be used to secure it. True, " love is the 



29 

fulfilling of the law," but not the abrogation of it. " Think 
not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets ; I am 
not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily, I say unto you, 
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no 
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." 

The teachings of Christ give us no ground for the in- 
ference that the Christian's path is always directly pleasant 
and inviting. That perfect love casteth out fear, does 
not deny the previous existence of fear, but rather asserts 
it. " When that which is perfect is come, then that which 
is iu part shall be done away." This state of perfectness 
must mean that union with God which can succeed only to 
the total renunciation of self. I am sorry to have been 
thought to undervalue the high end for which we were 
created, — the reception of Divine love. I did not think 
that a doubt might arise in the mind of any reader, whether 
the best welfare of the pupil was to be the paramount object 
in the use of all means. True love regards not so much 
the present, as the future and final well-being of its object. 
" As many as I love I rebuke and chasten ; be zealous, 
therefore, and repent." " Whom the Lord loveth he chas- 
teneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." 
Needed chastisement, then, is evidence of love, and such 
chastisement only did I advocate. Even of Christ it is said, 
" Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up 
prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears, unto 
him that was able to save him from death, and was heard, 
in that he feared. Though he were a Son, yet learned he 
obedience by the things which he suffered ; and being made 
perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them 
that obey him.'' And he himself says, " If any man come 
to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and chil- 
dren, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he 
cannot be my disciple." Nothing can be plainer than that 
true Christianity, or " perfect love," which John so much 
dwells upon, must be preceded by the abandonment of the 



30 

dearest earthly ties, and even of all self-love. While we aim 
at perfection we must not forget nor shrink from the perfect- 
ing process. Christianity promises no enduring peace to 
those who seek it anywhere but beyond the cross. " Blessed 
are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, [not 
happiness,] for they shall be filled." We must begin with 
humility, if we would end in love. 

Our Saviour warned his disciples against the example of 
a certain class of men who thought they should be heard for 
their much speaking. Mr. Mann seems to attach wonderful 
importance to a repetition of his reasoning. He insists upon 
proving that appeals to the conscience, &c., will be effectual, 
even in cases where it is premised that they will not be 
effectual ; thus excluding the premises from the conclusion ; 
— a most persevering mode of reasoning, showing enterprise 
if not induction. Since the premises will not lead to the 
conclusion, he arrives at it whether or no, independent of their 
authority. Observe how assertion can outweigh argument. 
I will insert, in italics, what the " Reply " does not quote. 

" Page 135, the ' Remarks ' say, — In instances, therefore, where, 
either from the peculiar condition of the subject, or the degree of 
temptation, ' the spirit of opposition is too strong to be overruled 
by those higher and more refined motives upon which we should 
always rely when they are active, we are left without resource unless 
we appeal to fear.' I deny that any Christian man, or any enlight- 
ened heathen man, is left without resource, under such circumstances, 
' unless he appeals to fear.' He has the resource of conscience, 
which is no more extinguished in the child's soul, by the clamorous 
passions that, for a time, may have silenced its voice, than the stars 
of heaven are annihilated by the cloud which for a moment obscures 
them from our vision. He has the resource of social and filial affec- 
tions. He has the love of knowledge and of truth, which never, in 
all its forms, is, or can be, eradicated from a sane mind." — Reply, 
p. 135. 

Did we not suppose an emergency in which the degree of 
temptation or the strength of will is such as to baffle them 
all? Yet, says our logician, I deny that any Christian man, 
or any enlightened heathen man is without resource under 



31 

such circumstances. "What is 'the meaning of such? like 
those above described ; namely, in which higher motives are 
unavailing to effect obedience. Thus, the reasoner denies 
the very premises assumed. 
He further says, 

"What a damning sentence does a teacher pronounce upon him- 
self, when he affirms that he has no resources in his own attainments, 
his own deportment, his own skill, his own character; but only [o??/?/] 
in the cowhide and birch, and in the strong arm that wields ihem ! " 
— Reply ^ p. 135. 

"Damning," indeed, but who dreamt of such a teacher? 
What an unfortunate exhibition does a man make of himself 
who violates his premises for the sake of his conclusion ; and 
then inveighs against his opponent upon the strength of it. 

Mr. Mann quotes from the first chapter of Isaiah, with an 
air of triumph, and remarks, in connection, as follows : 

"Even the Sovereign of the universe, — Jehovah himself, — at 
the close of that awful array of iniquities and transgressions which 
the people of Israel had committed against Him, breaks out in these 
words, ' Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord.' The Creator 
of heaven and earth, forgotten, contemned, blasphemed by the peo- 
ple whom He had chosen, after setting before them a catalogue of 
sins, such as no other people had ever committed, against such love 
and protection as no other people had ever experienced, lays aside 
the terrors of His omnipotence, and appeals to His apostate children 
as rational beings. He puts himself on an equality with them, — to 
reason with them as one man reasons with another." — Reply, 
p. 137. 

I object to the expression, " He puts himself on an equality 
with them," &c. " To whom, then, will ye liken me, or shall 
I be equal ? sailh the Holy One." 

I wish the reader would examine that whole chapter. I 
will quote verses 16-20 including the above passage : 

" Wash you, make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings 
from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; seek 
judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the 
widow. Come nov/, and let us reason together, saith the Lord ; 
though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; 
though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be 



32 

willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land ; but if ye 
refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword : for the mouth 
of the Lord hath spoken it." — Isaiah i. 16-20. 

What could be more to my purpose ; surely, T must thank 
Mr. Mann for this reference. How conclusively does it show 
that willing obedience is the only condition of reconciliation 
with God! 

" But when a child who has never been taught the distinction 
between right and wrong, whose whole instruction and example have 
tended to obliterate all distinction between right and wrong, in his 
mind, comes before these Boston teachers, tkey have no resource 
unless they appeal to 'fear;' and lest some friend or champion 
should strive to defend them, on the ambiguity of the word they have 
used, they fasten an indelible stigma upon themselves, by saying, in 
the next sentence, ' Now the lowest kind of fear has for its object 
physical pain.' I say, then, let this, their only ' resource,' be taken 
away, and let us go back to barbarism without carrying the most 
cold-blooded doctrines of civilization with us." — Reply, p. 137. 

" And lest some friend or champion should strive to defend 
them on the ambig-uity of the word," — a characteristic sug- 
gestion ! I did not wish to obscure my meaning by the use 
of ambiguous words, nor to avoid any " stigma " which 
sophistry and misrepresentation might aim to " fasten" upon 
me, for the avowal of honest opinions and sound doctrines. 
It was not my purpose to write forty-two pages in the 
" Remarks," and claim sympathy for the time and labor that 
it cost me, (us, as I said,) (us, as Mr. Mann contemptuously 
repeats,) without saying something. Non-committalism is 
what T repudiate, and so Mr. Mann accredits me. I flatter 
myself that it will take hira longer to overthrow my conclu- 
sions than it did me to establish them, if he attempts it by 
any other argument than the argumentum ad hominem. 

" Once more ; when the Father of all wished to reclaim his re- 
bellious people, he recounted his mercies to them, that He might 
enkindle their extinct gratitude. He preferred 'gratitude' to blind, 
abject, unreasoning ' submission.' It is left for the worms he created 
to prefer 'submission to gratitude.' God says, I will have mercy 
and not sacrifice ; the Thirty-one say. We will not have ' voluntary 
consent,' but ' unconditional surrender.' " — Reply, pp. 137-8. 



33 

" Submission to gratitude" is not my language; nor did 
I anywhere even imply the idea of preferring submission to 
gratiUide. I said, " Kindness cannot supply the place of 
authority, nor gratitude that of submission." The last sen- 
tence of the above extract also avers what is not true, in any 
sense of the word. I did not say^ " We will not have ' volun- 
tary consent ' but '■ unconditional surrender.' " My language 
was, " Care should be taken not to confound voluntary con- 
sent with unconditional surrender." The whole passage is 
upon the 24th and 25th pages of this Rejoinder. 

I have already expressed my opinion of the character of 
the 130th page of the " Reply," where the first false testimony 
is adduced to make out a case against me. What shall be 
said of the passage just quoted from the 137-8th pages, where 
the issue is closed? — fit end for such a beginning. The argu- 
ment is summed up within the limits I have mentioned, pp. 130 
to 138 ; let him who wishes to see how a case may be managed, 
examine them. It is the very poetry of demonstration, and 
the rule of interpretation is, " What you 'd have it, make it." 
Start from your conclusion and make your premises to cor- 
respond. The Secretary next proceeds to pass summary 
judgment, as follows : 

" Were the date of this part of the ' Remarks ' to be lost, and 
should a question arise, to be settled by the internal evidence it con- 
tains, as to the time when it was written, there is not a single original 
sentiment in it, by which its origin could be assigned to any period 
since the purer light of the gospel beamed upon the world ; and were 
it to be thrown back beyond the period of our era, the better portion 
of that hard-hearted, stiff-necked and rebellious race, — the Jews 
themselves, — would repel it as a libel." — Reply, p. 138. 

Mr. Mann is rather sweeping in his denunciations, and so 
were the Jews. It was because they were rebellious and 
stiff-necked that they repelled Christianity, whose most objec- 
tionable feature to them was, the spirit of humility which it 
inculcated. But since we must grope our way back into 
ante- Christian darkness, to find the birth-time of the creed I 
have professed, when, let me ask, was the twilight dim 
e 



34 

enough to excuse the sentiments and spirit of the '• Reply." 
Following the hint and borrowing the language of the Secre- 
tary, I am tempted to say that were the date of this portion 
of the " Reply " to be lost, its existence could not be ration- 
ally accounted for at all ; and if civilization recedes as we 
go backwards, it would be most safe to assign its origin to a 
period bordering closely upon the fall of man. 
Mr. Mann continues, 

" But I believe that it would be most unjust to impute a belief of 
these abhorrent doctrines to all, or even to a majority of those who 
have subscribed them." — Reply, p. 138. 

I have shown how unjust it is to impute to any one, a belief 
in the abhorrent doctrines represented in the " Reply." The 
reader has probably learned by this time to distinguish between 
them and the creed of the " Remarks." But, while Mr. Mann 
has been unfair towards our doctrines, he has been charitable 
to the endorsers of them. It is generous in him to provide so 
easy a loophole of retreat. In one instance he has been 
more than kind. 

" But there is one of the signers of the ' Remarks,' whom I will 
not only advise to retract his plea of ' guilty,' but I will show that, 
unless he has revolutionized his whole doctrine, — not of School 
Discipline merely, but of human nature itself, — he is not a disciple 
of this gloomy faith. I refer to Mr. Joshua Bates, Jr., now of the 
Brimmer School, Boston, but late Principal of an excellent Grammar 
School in Charlestown. While in Charlestown, and before he en- 
tered the ' Association ' of the Thirty-one, Mr. Bates wrote and 
published an admirable essay, on what he called an 'all-important' 
subject, namely, 'The Operation of Moral Influences in the Educa- 
tion of the Young.' From this essay I make the following extracts, 
not only to corroborate my own views by their invincible strength, 
but to adorn these pages by their beautiful spirit." — Reply, p. 138. 

Mr. Bates, then, it is alleged, has revolutionized his whole 
doctrine of School Discipline and of human nature, because 
he, at one time, wrote an essay on the importance of moral 
influences in educating the young, and, at another time, 
endorsed an essay maintaining the right and propriety of a 
final resort to the rod, when moral means fail to secure obedi^ 



35 

ence. Both essays elevate moral over physical influences. 
One, in pursuance of its subject, dwells upon the former, 
while it does not deny the latter. The other, with the same 
pertinency, dwells upon and defends the latter, but admits 
and asserts the superiority of the former. 

Now where is the inconsistency? Mr. Mann seems to 
have no idea of compensating and harmonizing doctrines. 
Mercy and justice clash in his philosophy. They rather repel 
than attract each other. Nothing appears safe to him but that 
guarded speech ; the test phrases of which are, perhaps, it 
may he, possibly, and in a few rare instances, j9ro6a6/?/; but 
if so hazardous a word as always should chance to fall out, 
at no great distance must be found the saving clause, " unless 
in most extraordinary cases." The harmony of opinions 
thus stated, is the harmony of deathlike silence; all is blank 
and meaningless, like a legal instrument without the binding 
clause. Because Mr. Bates has, at one time, positively as- 
serted his belief in the importance of moral means, and at 
another, his equally firm belief in the value of physical means, 
each when appropriate, he seems to be regarded by the Secre- 
tary as inconsistent with himself. There is no inconsistency; 
all that he objects to in his essay is, the abuse of the rod, or its 
use where moral means might answer ; and all that I defend 
is, its use where moral means have been faithfully tried in 
vain. The " Reply," having quoted several pages from the 
essay in question, exclaims, 

" How could Mr. Bates, after inditing such admirable sentiments as 
these, subscribe to the unchristian doctrines contained in the 'Re- 
marks ! ' I believe there is no inconsiderable portion of the Thirty- 
one, who, if these opposite views were presented at the same time, 
for their signature, would disown the creed they have so lately 
subscribed, and avow themselves to be disciples of a higher faith ; 
and until, in some more unequivocal form, they shall extinguish the 
pleasure I have in this belief, I will continue to hold it. As to 
others of them, it is doubtless true, that a change of nature must 
precede a change of faith." — Reply, p. 141. 

Justice to the principles I am maintaining compels me to 
deprive Mr. Mann of this consoling belief. Not a single 



36 

signer of the " Remarks " ever expressed to me any dissent 
from the doctrines I advanced ; and further, I am authorized 
to say, that each individual subscribes still to the spirit and 
doctrines of the fourth section of the " Remarks," as he un- 
derstood them at the time of signing, and as he now under- 
stands them. It may be pertinent also to say, in reply to the 
solitary position in which Mr. Mann places my notions, that 
the argument was given as a lecture before the American 
Institute at Portland, and the doctrines advanced were sup- 
ported, to the fullest extent, by very strong minds. We have 
also the sympathy and countenance of a vast number of 
teachers both in and out of the State.* 

* Corporal Punishment ir Schools. — The tendency is checked, 
which we observed a few months ago, to prohibit the use of the rod in any 
case, in the government of schools. We have regretted that Mr. Randall, 
the Assistant Superintendent of Common Schools in this State, is taking 
so untenable ground on this subject. But he seems to be met with argu- 
ments that he cannot overcome, wherever he attempts to inculcate hia 
radical doctrines. In February last a meeting of the Teachers' Associa- 
tion of Albany county was held in the City Hall, The Argus says that 
the primary object of this meeting was to discuss the subject of corporal 
punishment, which had already engaged the attention of the association at 
its last meetings. Mr. S, S. Randall had been invited to give the associa- 
tion his views on the subject to be discussed, and he delivered a very 
eloquent and highly interesting address on the " proper government and 
discipline of schools;" in the course of which he advocated the entire 
abolition of corporal punisliment, as a means of school discipline, and 
described it as being liable to abuse, degrading in its nature, and ineffica- 
cious in its results. He was followed by Mr. C. H. Anthony, with an 
elaborate argument to prove that this mode of punishment is both expedi- 
ent and indispensably necessary, and that it is sanctioned by scripture, to 
which he frequently referred to prove his position. 

After Mr. Anthony completed his argument, the following resolution 
was passed by an overwhelming majority, more than four fifths of the 
members voting in the affirmative. 

" Resolved, That the substitution of moral suasion, to the entire exclu- 
sion of corporal punishment in school discipline, is impracticable in its 
operation, and dangerous in its tendency." — JVew York Observer, Jipiii 
26, 1845. 



37 

The " Reply" continues, 

" But the ' Remarks' claim support from the sayings of Solomon. 
As to this, let me observe, that I am yet to learn that the precepts 
and practices applicable to that peculiar people, the Jews, and to 
their state of civilization, are to be transferred to our times, without 
great modifications. I do not believe, on the one hand, that his 
injunctions have all been abrogated, like the Levitical law of rites 
and observances ; nor, on ihe other, that they all have the inherent 
and perpetually-binding force of the decalogue. Nor is there any 
reason to suppose that, by the words 'child' and 'son,' Solomon 
necessarily meant boys between twelve and sixteen years of age, — 
ay, and girls too ! Both text and context indicate that he referred 
mainly to children, — not to all children, indiscriminately, but only 
to a part, — before their moral and intellectual powers were so 
developed, that any man, being himself possessed of morals and 
intellect, could appeal to higher motives than the rod for their govern- 
ment. I have invariably observed, that the hardest-hearted are the 
greatest quoters of Solomon, both in regard to domestic and to 
school discipline." — i?epZ?/, pp. 141-2. 

Appearances are deceitful, says our motto. Some hearts 
that seem quite soft, are hard enough indeed, when we come 
to try them. But does Mr. Mann mean to imply, that what 
Solomon said about training up a child in the way he should 
go, had reference merely to the Jews ? There can be no doubt 
indeed, that the rod is meant for those only who will not 
regard counsel and reproof; and just that view have I taken. 
Will the reader, in addition to the evidence I have already 

Teachers' Association. — -An adjourned meeting of the Teachers' 
Association of this county, was held in the City Hall in Albany, on Satur- 
day the 22d of February, 1845. The following resolution Avas offered by 
Mr. T. W. Valentine, and was passed unanimously : 

"Resolved, That as teachers, we have watched with deep interest the 
controversy now and for some time past going on between the Hon. Horace 
Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and the Boston 
School Teachers ; and that, while we would take no part in any thing 
merely personal between those gentlemen, we feel bound to express our 
decided approbation of the views expressed and sustained by those teach- 
ers upon the subject of school discipline," 

The association then adjourned, sine die. E. S. Adams, Rec. Sec, 

— Mhany Argus, March 21. 



38 

given that I recommended persuasion before compulsion, see 
how I arranged and graduated the different kinds of punish- 
ment; it is a strong indication of the preference given to mild 
means ; and indeed whenever the selection of measures is 
referred to, however indirectly, the same postponement of the 
rod is evident. The passage alluded to, is near the top of 
page 14 of this Rejoinder, quoted from the " Remarks," and 
also from the " Reply." Punishment is of various kinds ; it 
may be, first, a look ; second, a word ; third, a privation ; 
fourth, a task ; fifth, a forfeiture ; or last, (last,) a blow. 

Solomon alludes undoubtedly to young children ; and so do 
I. Mr. Mann speaks of the period between twelve and sixteen, 
as if that were the period during which we speak of the neces- 
sity of the rod. Any person, in reading the fourth section of 
the " Remarks," ought to infer, that it maintains the necessity 
of the rod during early childhood mainly in the family by the 
parent ; and that its use in school follows from the parental 
nature of school authority. I said, 

" We here clothe the teacher with parental authority, not only 
because he stands in loco parentis by consent of law and common 
opinion, but because we know not how else to regard him. We 
admit that the teacher's authority is naturally derived from the parent. 
But to refer all the petty punishments of little children to the parents, 
besides being impracticable, would imply want of confidence in the 
teacher, and weaken the tie that binds him to the pupil. Moreover, 
without relieving the teacher, it would impose upon the parent a task 
that does not belong to him ; and needlessly tempt the child to mis- 
represent his case. There is much sound philosophy in the old- 
fashioned threat, ' If I know of your being whipped at school, I'll 
whip you again when you get home.' This firm support of the 
teacher has a far better effect upon the child, than the opposite course 
of listening to complaints and nurturing in his mind disaffection and 
distrust, it begets parental interest in the teacher, and filial affec- 
tion in the pupil. Teachers ought to be worthy of such support and 
confidence." — Remarks, p. 140. 

If Mr. Mann recommends any but parental authority for 
children, especially young children, he does more than most 
writers on education are willing to do. I wrote with refer- 
ence to children any and everywhere, whether in the family, 



39 

or in the infant, primary, grammar, or high school ; defending 
the use of the rod when other means fail. And as to the 
limit, twelve to sixteen, I presume most cases of punishment 
occur under the age of ten ; and where early training is prop- 
erly attended to, under the age of six. I agree with Mr. Bates 
fully on this point. I may, in another place, say more of the 
nature of all dealing with children, and attempt to show that 
any but parental treatment of them is unappropriate. It 
should be remembered that I did not quote Solomon in a 
single instance. Indeed, I purposely avoided it. Since, how- 
ever, the Secretary expresses some little respect for the wis- 
dom of Solomon, I will give a condensed view of his doctrines 
on this and kindred subjects, in his own language. They 
may be commonplace, but they are equally common-sense, 
and perhaps are as applicable to Gentiles as to Jeivs. 

" A reproof entereth more into a wise man than a hundred stripes 
into a fool." 

"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, 
even they both are abomination to the Lord." 

" Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for 
equity." 

" Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare 
for his crying." 

" Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware : and reprove one 
that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge." 

" Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the backs 
of fools." 

" Say not thou, I will recompense evil ; but wait on the Lord, and 
he shall save thee." 

" Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child ; but the rod of cor- 
rection shall drive it far from him." 

" He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous ; him shall the 
people curse, nations shall abhor him. But to them that rebuke him 
shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them." 

" Withhold not correction from the child : for if thou beatest him 
with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod and 
shalt deliver his soul from hell." 

" The rod and the reproof give wisdom : but a child left to himself 
bringeth his mother to shame." 

" Correct thy son and he shall give thee rest : yea, he shall give 
delight unto thy soul." 

Probably the above are as familiar to the Secretary as 



40 

" the cold-hearted doctrines" of English, French, and German 
school literature, in comparing ray views with which, he says, 

" I have read most of what has been written in the English and 
French languages, on the subject of education, besides many of the 
muhitudinous works issued from the German press; and I say, 
deliberately and advisedly, that if all the unfeeling and cold-hearted 
doctrines, contained in so much of the school literature of these 
several languages, as I have seen, were collected together, it would 
not equal a tithe of what is to be found in the last forty pages of the 
' Eemarks.' " — Reply ^ p. 142. 

If the last clause were amended so as to read, " in Mr. 
Mann's picture of the last forty pages of the ' Remarks.' " it 
would no doubt be very just. I have already spoken of it as 
a fit code for Pandemonium. Perhaps the " Remarks " are 
objectionable to Mr. Mann, because they settle something, 
and consequently differ so widely from his own argumentative 
writings. By contrast they may seem to mean a great deal, 
inasmuch as they cannot be resolved into absolute nothing. 
I presume a vague tissue of evasion, touching upon all possible 
means and measures as necessary, " unless in most extraor- 
dinary cases," and leaving the matter in such a way as to 
satisfy a careless observer of either party, but a careful one of 
neither, would have been much more in accordance with the 
equipoise condition in which he " dares " to leave the decision 
of " momentous questions." 

But, after all, I am recommended to mercy, or rather pity, 
upon the score of sincerity, in the following terms, 

" As to the spirit from which this part of the ' Remarks ' emana- 
ted, I have no doubt of its sincerity ; — but there is a sincerity in 
wrong more hopeless than deception itself. Dugald Stewart speaks 
of an 'absolute conscience,' as contradistinguished from an 'individual' 
one, — the former being a conscience whose decisions all just men 
recognise as true, — the latter, a conscience whose decisions are 
rarely approved by any except the mind that originates them. The 
latter kind, I have no doubt the writer of this section possesses and 
obeyed." — Reply, pp. 142-3. 

My conscience is on trial again. " Angels and ministers of 
grace defend us," before the keen scrutiny of such a search- 



41 

ing tribunal. I wish my teacher and guide liad quoted more 

than three words from Dugald Stewart, or, in consideration of 
my limited reading, had referred me to the passage. Does • 
" Dugald Stewart speak of an ' absolute conscience ' as con- 
tradistinguished from an ' individual' one" ? 
Spurzheim says, 

" I divide it [the conscience,] first, into natural or absolute — the 
effect of conscientiousness combined with all the other faculties 
proper to man, those which are common to men and animals being 
held in subordination ; secondly, into individual^ particular^ ov rela- 
tive, which results from the conscientiousness of every one combined 
with his other faculties ; thirdly into positive^ which is fixed by legis- 
lation whether divine or civil." — "This feeling in itself, like all 
others, is liable to aberrations and mistakes." 

The absolute conscience, then, means perfect right, or con- 
scientiousness acting above all personal considerations ; a 
result which cannot really obtain in regard to any merely 
human being, since all see things more or less modified by 
their own selfish relations ; to deny this, is to deny selfishness 
in some. If Mr. Mann means to say that " Dugald Stewart 
speaks of an ' absolute conscience ' " as a specific kind of con- 
science found to belong to some persons, and "an ' individual' 
one " as a specific kind found to belong to others, he involves 
that philosopher in an absurdity in which I hope and trust he 
never involved himself. How can any man have aught but 
an " individual " conscience, which is his own, and which is 
more or less in harmony with the (not " an ") absolute con- 
science, or abstract right as seen by minds unbiased, as he is 
less or more swayed by local, selfish, animal, or intellectual 
considerations. Now every man's conscience is liable to 
aberrations. He who thinks he has enlarged the sphere of 
his vision so much as to see all and lose sight of himself, may 
be pretty sure that he has been rather magnifying himself to 
such an extent, as to include and claim the homage of all. 
While, therefore, every just man should carefully examine the 
opinions of others, he will, if he is true to himself, try to be 
fully persuaded in his own mind ; lest he adopt prevailing, 
f 
I 



42 

rather than true opinions. Luther had a conscience. Paul 
had a conscience. Socrates and Aristides had each one con- 
science. Daniel had a conscience. Every true man has 
a conscience ; and it is his own individual conscience. " Hast 
thou faith ? [the highest conscience] have it to thyself before 
God." But there is sometimes danger that a man, instead of 
having his conscience to himself " before God," who changeth 
not, may have it to himself indeed, but before his friends. 
Thus is produced a sort of spurious " absolute conscience," 
which deceives many, because, in following it, they only 
follow one another. It is not entitled to any philosophical 
classification, being heterogeneous and anomalous, and 
depending mainly upon accidental mutualities ; but, for the 
sake of distinction, it might be called a compensating mutual 
assurance conscience, for the relief and support of friends in 
distress. It is the exact opposite of that which Nathan fol- 
lowed when he said to David, " Thou art the man ;" and has 
a direct tendency to encourage those who have little " indi- 
vidual " conscience, in running moral risks. A modern dis- 
covery, this ; and forming a characteristic feature of this age 
of sympathetic consociation, when individuality is merged in 
combined union. But to come back to my own "individual 
conscience ; " I must have been quite successful, to have 
defined myself so distinctly to Mr. Mann, in a single attempt, 
as to enable him to decide upon the qualities of my con- 
science. While I acknowledge my gratitude for the care he 
has bestowed in analyzing my motives, I shall decline recip- 
rocaling the attention for two reasons, either of which is a 
sufficient excuse. First, from choice, because it is not pertinent 
to the occasion ; and second, from necessity, since from what 
evidence I possess, I am unable to come to any definite 
conclusion. 

Mr. Mann seems, in using the following language, to draw 
on the robes of conscious dignity, as if to shield himself from 
insult, though no insult was offered. 

" And has it come to this, that an officer of the government, in 



43 

the discharge of a high official duty, cannot comment upon abuses 
Certified as existing by the highest authority, without drawing down 
upon himself the gravest and most offensive personal imputations. 
On this principle, how can the school committees of the respective 
towns expose abuses in the schools they were appointed to superin- 
tend ? " — Reply, p. 143. 

And has it come to this, that an officer of the governnnent, 

in the discharge of a high official duty, can maltreat, pervert, 

and misrepresent an unoffending article, written in a kind 

spirit and upon a most important subject, because it points 

out, in a gentle manner, some contradictions in his own 

writings ? On this principle, how can any teacher dare to 

utter sentiments, expressing dissent or criticism, unless at 

every important statement he exclaims, in style of Eastern 

adulation, " May he live a thousand years, and may his 

shadow never be less." 

" It is well known that many schools have been kept in this State 
and elsewhere, without the aid of corporal punishment in any form ; 
and that other incantations, more potent than the resounding lash, or 
the cries of its victims, have exorcised the evil spirit from the school- 
room." — " I think, from the best information I have been able to 
obtain from all sources, that one half, at least, of the teachers who 
have gone out fram the Normal School at Lexington, — some of 
whom have now kept school for four years, and others for three, — 
have never used blows. Committees, also, in different parts of the 
State, occasionally report similar schools." — Reply, p. 144. 

To offset that, I will introduce from the Abstract of the 
Massachusetts School Returns for 1843-4, a few extracts, 
mentioning the page of each, and also the town from the 
report of whose committee it is taken. 

p. 57. " Marlborough. — Teachers at the present day have pe- 
culiar difficulties in this respect, difficulties which their predecessors 
never had to meet. The good old custom of paying respect to one's 
elders has pretty much gone out of fashion. As some one has 
humorously remarked, ' formerly there were boj'^s and girls in the 
world, but now the race has become extinct. They are either babies 
in their nurse's arms, or else they are grown up men and women.' 
There is too much truth in the observation. In the schools, the 
natural result of this feeling is an obvious want of subordination, 
which, if it increases and becomes prevalent, will prove the ruin of 
all solid and substantial improvement." 



44 

p. 1 17. " Spencer. — Nothing does more to make children deserve 
the rod than to be told the teacher must not use it. The sound doc- 
trine to be taught, is, that there must be authority and order in the 
school — without the rod if it can be, if not, with it," 

p. 141. " Hadley. — The currency of certain erroneous doc- 
trines, — as, that teachers can have no lawful control over tlieir pupils 
except in the hours of school, and that corporal punishment ought 
never to be inflicted, — has had a powerful influence in palsying all 
efforts for the support of that government, without which schools are 
but the nurseries of disobedience, misrule, and profligate and malig- 
nant passions." 

p. 146. "Pelham. — It seems that many teachers at the present 
day, having a great desire to govern without a resort to corporal 
punishments, govern not at all." 

p. 161. " Tolland. — Time was, when, if a child was reproved 
or punished at school, he was, on his return home, frowned upon 
and punished by his parents. The authority of the school was then 
sustained. But it is not so now. If the child is now admonished or 
punished by the teacher, he often hastens home to make his com- 
plaint ; and the erring parent, after hearing it, indignantly exclaims, 
' Why, did the cruel monster punish my sweet little darling ? Well, 
come here, dear, — come to me, and I'll give you some sugar 
plums.' And thus is the child comforted and ruined, and the teach- 
er's authority prostrated. If parents would have their schools pros- 
per, they must encourage and sustain the teacher in his work." 

p. 181. " Sunderland. — Mistaken notions on this point are ruin- 
ous. There is a strong tendency, in some of the influences which 
exist, to irregularity and disorder. And nowhere, (save in the 
family circle,) can more be done to counteract or increase this ten- 
dency than in our Public Schools." 

p. 228. " Weymouth. — Again, there are those who deny not the 
moral but the legal right of the teacher, to inflict corporal punish- 
ment on a scholar. This class, we believe, is small ; but their 
influence upon a school is most pernicious." 

The " Reply " says in a note on p. 145 : 

" I have just seen the last Report of Franklin Sawyer, Esq., the 
Superintendent of the Public Schools in the First Municipality of 
New Orleans, where a system of public schools was established at 
the commencement of the present year, the schools being nearly as 
large as the Grammar Schools of Boston. 

" ' Next to classificaiion comes the necessity of steady and vigor- 
ous discipline, the difficulties attending which are not small and 
cannot be easily obviated. Corporal punishment, is, in all cases, 
forbidden.' " — Reply, p. 145. 



45 

I should place more reliance upon an experience of five 
or ten years, than upon that of one, 

" Lunatic hospitals," " sailors on board ships of war," 
" malefactors in prisons," are brought up again ; every thing 
but New England children, in a New England schoolroom, 
with the vigor of health in their blood, and conscious freedom 
in their hearts ; full of frolic and fun, and not a whit the 
worse for it either. Sensible children expect to have their 
excesses checked, and, if not " sicklied o'er " with the notions 
of the times, are rather grateful for w^holesome and kind cor- 
rection. 

" Yes ! let the Thirty-one import some amelioration of their sys- 
tem from the nobler philosophy of Botany Bay ; and refine their 
notions of ' School Discipline,' in Boston, by adopting the principles 
of ' Convict Management,' in the penal colonies of Australia." — 
Reply, p. 147. 

We are not to fit our pupils to become convicts and out- 
casts, but to prevent if possible their ever becoming so. We 
are training children to resist temptation and learn to yield to 
rightful authority, not reclaiming adults whose temptation has 
proved too strong for them, and who, having tasted the bitter 
fruits of actual transgression, are suffering a lasting remedial 
penalty which perhaps timely correction might have ren- 
dered unnecessary. In the Report of the Prison Discipline 
Society of the United States, for the year 1834 or 1835, occurs 
the following paragraph. 

" An opinion has existed extensively, that the rod viay he dis- 
pensed with in the government of children. We learn no such 
thing from the history of crime. On the contrary, we find prisons 
tenanted by those who were not resolutely and thoroughly corrected 
in childhood. And if there is any one truth deeply impressed upon 
our minds by a laborious examination of many persons who have 
fallen into crime, it is this: ' He that spareth the rod hatelh his son ; 
but he that loveth him, chasteneth him betimes.' " 

Now for a rare specimen of rant and unfairness. 

"Yes, Fathers and Mothers of Boston, the children, — the daugh- 
ters even! — 'Over whose opening natures you have watched with a 



46 

vigilance only less than that of the eye that never sleeps; from 
whom, as far as human foresight could do it, you have turned aside 
the thought and the example of contamination and wrong, — these 
are the children to whom the ruthless and immitigable doctrines of 
Authority, Force, Fear, and Pain, are to be relentlessly applied. 

" But stop ! You are not left wholly without hope. The ' Re- 
marks ' say, in regard to schools, composed of such outcast and 
miserable beings as 1 have described, that ' kindness is the appropri- 
ate, and should be the almost exclusive means of influence.' (p. 104.) 
And again ; ' Whatever may be said of the needlessness of compul- 
sory or retributive discipline,' — ' in all institutions for elevating 
those who have become depraved below the common level, either by 
misfortune or voluntary vice, it can have but a very partial bearing 
upon the question of discipline in our Common Schools.' (p. 114.) 
A way, then, is open, — one condition is still left, — by which you 
may save your children from the degradation of stripes, and the 
dastard crouchings of fear ; and by which you may secure for them 
a government and training, whose means are ' active occupations, 
music and Christian love,' — 'Christian instruction and Christian 
benevolence.' Abandon them. Strip oif the lineaments of love 
from your countenance and put on those of a fiend. Let your words 
scorch instead of counselling. For embraces, give blows. When 
night comes on, send them abroad for theft, instead of teaching them 
to bend their knees, and lift up their voices, in thanksgiving for the 
past blessings of the light, and the coming blessings of the darkness; 
and at last, when the officers of the law shall have seized them for 
theft, or burglary, or incendiarism, console yourselves with the 
reflection that, for such children, ' kindness is the appropriate, and 
should be the almost exclusive means of influence ; ' — that they can 
now be blessed by ' Christian instruction and Christian love,' be- 
cause their present condition has only ' a very partial bearing upon 
the question of discipline, in our Common Schools.'" — Reply, pp. 
151-3. 

Why comment upon such rhodomontade as this ? No 
one can read it attentively and apply it as it is aimed, without 
feeling either provoked or disgusted, or both. 

I am next charged " with a degree of error or ignorance," 
" which would be shameful in a schoolboy," but without 
presenting the reader with an example where the evidence of 
it occurs. I know not which to despise most, the conceal- 
ment of the language containing the alleged fault, or the 
hypercriticism that would be at the pains to point out one so 
merely nominal. As to the charge of buffoonery, I know not 
what there is to support it, unless it be the use of a sentence 



47 

from respectable medical authority, containing the word 
' chicken-broth.' I surely was not aware when I used that 
illustration, that there was so much vulgarity in merely 
naming a boiled fowl. As to the charge of comparing great 
and good men " to a young medical fool," it is not only 
unfounded, but supposes the mistake of taking the medical 
case from the animal region where it belongs, and applying 
it in the intellectual and moral region. 

Still more serious matter is made out of the casual expres- 
sion, " The mildest terms may portend dire consequences to 
the disobedient." I used it in a half-playful way, as the 
North American Review says; and yet Mr. Mann considers it 
" too pregnant with meaning to be passed by unnoticed ; " and 
his direful imagination helps him to unfold that meaning in a 
style peculiar to himself. It may be found upon pages 157-8 
of the " Reply ;" for some excellent comments upon which, I 
refer the reader to the January number of the North American 
Review. Thus let these matters pass. Was any other writer 
ever guilty of such monstrous exaggeration, unless in sport? 

"Dulce est desipere in loco." 
The toyshop is a place for amusement. 

We come now to that part of the " Reply " which may be 
styled, an encyclopedia of history, biography, and science, or 
an epitome of the moral sublime, for infantile minds, together 
with an entire view of " the magnificent realms of nature" as 
seen in a " toyshop," and viewed through [? in] a kaleido- 
scope. It is all to be found on pages 159-62 of the " Reply." 

" Can no new turn of the kaleidoscope, whose object-glass [the 
ohject-glass of a kaleidoscope !] points to the magnificent realms of 
nature, bring no new combination of wonders to view ? " 

"The geometric architecture of bees, the final cause of the ex- 
pansion of freezing water, the velocity of electric currents, the equal 
gravitation of a feather and of lead, the untwisting of a seven-col- 
ored thread of light, or the apparent aberration of fixed stars." — 
" The marvellous adaptations of the human frame ; the laws, habits, 
instincts, of birds, beasts, fishes ;" "sound, motion, color; the won- 
ders of art ; the treasures of literature ; the revelations of science ; 



48 : ' 

the history of man, the pathos of his sufferings, the nobleness of his 

virtues." 

Look for any thing you want and there you will find it. 

"Beast, bird, fish, insect, what no eye can see, 
No glass can reach, from Infinite to thee ; 
From thee to nothing." 

Nay, nothing' itself, dancing in masquerade, assuming all 
sorts of shapes, " playing fantastic tricks," and, like pieces of 
rubbish in a kaleidoscope, dressing itself up into forms of 
imaged beauty, whose appearance presents unity and order 
and harmony, though the substance from which this shadow 
of regularity springs, is but a mass of deformed and shapeless 
fragments. A kaleidoscope exhibits nothing but itself, and 
itself only by trickish turns ; it is full of wonders for a child, 
but as soon as you see through it, there is nothing of it, but 
odds and ends, pieces ill-assorted, and arranged to look like 
what they are not. Yet a " little child " would be much more 
delighted with the varying forms of deception, caused by the 
artful re-reflection of the ragged bits of glass, than he would 
with a faint view of Jupiter's belts as seen through Herschell's 
great telescope. Children, and some men, like to see and 
exhibit sights, much better than to follow out principles. The 
idea that in the wonders of nature there is " as much to chal- 
lenge and command the attention of a little [little] child, as 
in the curiosities of a toyshop," is perfectly ridiculous. Na- 
ture is, indeed, the philosopher's toyshop. She presents, 
to him, on every side, subjects for contemplation and inquiry. 
It is also true, that " He who created the soul, and created the 
system in which it is placed, has made the joy of acquisition, 
where knowledge is rightly presented, as great to the child as 
to the philosopher." {Replp, p. 160.) It must be knowledge, 
however, adapted to the wants, tastes, and capacities of the 
individual. Intellectual effort is an amusement to the philoso- 
pher, to a much greater extent than to children in school. 
Yet even he submits to toil and study, tedious in themselves, 
for the sake of the results which are to be wrought out, and 



49 

from obtaining which he anticipates satisfaction and delight. 
Children, however, have not learned to look forward to future 
benefit ; they are impatient of long processes, and one great 
point is to teach them to inure their minds to patient study? 
that they may thereby gain the power of acquiring knowledge. 
" We walk amidst wonders," it is true, but not all with the 
feelings of Sir John Herschell. 

Mr, Mann, ostensibly, has done vastly better with the toy- 
shop than with any other topic we have considered. It has 
called forth beautiful language and fine thoughts, though it 
fails to make out that education is an amusement merely. 
He certainly has given us the most indubitable evidence, that 
he belongs to a class of " teachers who have something besides 
' a beggarly account of empty ' heads, wherewith to satisfy the 
cravings of a child's curiosity," to borrow his own courteous 
language. A teacher, however, will need to do something 
else besides satisfying the cravings of a child's curiosity ; he 
may sometimes have to labor hard to excite it, and often even 
to repress that which is too eager in the pursuit of trifles. 
Indeed, his chief labor consists in acting the part, not so 
much of a showman in the toyshop, as of a real man in the 
ivorkshop. His business is not merely to furnish entertain- 
ment, but more to quicken and aid development; to correct and 
form the taste^ rather than to pander to that which may happen 
to exists Children must often leave the " novelties " of the 
" toyshop," and strive to cultivate a healthy relish for the 
antiquities of sober truth, whose beauty is ever new and 
constantly increasing, to the mind that has once learned to 
appreciate it. 

" The Thirty-one followed me into the toyshop ; and there, as it 
appears by the above extract from their ' Remarks,' they remain 
still, — holding on to a text-book with one hand, from which to read 
off their explanations; and, with the other hand, flogging the chil- 
dren, through lack of ' novelties ' to occupy and delight them." — 
Reply, p. 162. 

We followed Mr. Mann into the toyshop for the amusement 
g 



50 

of the children that accompanied us, having full faith in the 
power of the toys to gratify their curiosity; not lo listen to a 
lecture on the universe, and practice amateur flogging, for 
our own amusement. We leave him with a kaleidoscope 
for a telescope, watching the ever-varying shapes that appear 
within its Protean tube, and mistaking them for realities 
existing beyond it; — fit emblem of a philosophy which pro- 
fesses to lead us through nature up to nature's God, but in 
reality only mocks us with the fading forms of evanescent 
beauty confined within its own narrow limits. 

" But I come at last to the sad finale of this mournful article on 
' School Discipline.' The point I am now about to consider is stated 
early in the section, although according to all logical principles of 
arrangement, it should have constituted its tragic and funereal close. 
On pages 104-5, speaking of ' physical pain ' as an indispensable 
means of 'school discipline'; — and here as elsewhere, making no 
exception of age, sex, or disposition, — the 'Remarks' affirm that 
' it,' [namely, ' physical pain,'] ' will have its place, its proper sphere 
of influence, not for a limited period merely, lili teachers become 
better qualified, and society more morally refined, but while men and 
children continue to be human ; that is, so long as schools and 
schoolmasters, and government and laws are needed.' " — Reply, pp. 
162-3. 

That is, while men remain subjfect to human weaknesses 
and passions. When the earth shall be full of the knowledge 
of the Lord, human influences will cease to prevail, and all 
will be subject to the Divine will. Mr. Mann extends the 
agency of physical means beyond where I intended. We 
do not both attach the same meaning to terms. I make a 
distinction between the words human and divine, and under- 
stand the regeneration of one, or many, or all, to a new and 
spiritual life, to imply a death unto sin and a resurrection to 
an incorruptible life with God. Whenever that day comes 
we shall know it. ' Falsehood, and revenge, and calumny, 
will be no longer known ; character will then be sacred ; am- 
bition and pride will cease ; and the love of God will reign 
triumphant in the soul. 

Mr. Mann has done me gross injustice already, in attributing 



61 

to me a preference of the rod to even moral means. He, 
in the following extract, shows a total blindness to my views, 
by representing me as urging the use of physical force even 
in the region of spiritual perfection. So absurd an inference 
as that, I had not anticipated. 

" In the clear vista of futurity, pictured against a serener sky and 
glowing in a celestial light, I see, by the eye of faith, the heralds of 
Universal Peace. The great prophecy of Christianity is at last ful- 
filled. Emblems have become realities, and hope is lost in fruition. 
There is peace on earth and good-will among men. But lo ! what 
hideous spectacle profanes this hallowed vision? It is a spectacle of 
men, and the likeness thereof is as the likeness of the Thirty-one 
Boston Schoolmasters shli Jlog gin g boys, and — flogging girls!" 
— Reply, p. 164. 

The whole ends thus with a burlesque upon prophecy ; not, 
I presume, intended in that light, but still wearing that aspect. 
In relation to the prominence given throughout the section 
to the idea of flogging girls, it may be said, that Mr. Mann 
has availed himself of sympathies which lend him great 
strength. An appeal to the chivalrous spirit which prompts 
us to redress an indignity offered to one of the weaker sex, 
is proper when made to protect her from outrage and wrong, 
but grossly improper and unmanly when made to shield chil" 
dren from wholesome restraint. It is surprising, that any who 
have dwelt much upon the subject of education, should so 
pervert the relation of a teacher to his pupils, as to represent 
the gentle infliction of needed chastisement upon a little girl, 
in the light of a brutal attack upon feminine delicacy and 
weakness. Is there no difference between rude and boister- 
ous treatment of a refined and sensitive young lady, and the 
wholesome restraint and punishment of an ill-behaved little 
girl ? To call chastisement by the coarsest names, as 
" FLOGGING," " the resounding lash and the cries of its vic- 
tims," " the refining influences of the cowskin," thus stim- 
ulating a sympathy, which runs so instinctively into a state of 
morbid excess, does not bespeak the highest confidence in the 
force of simple truth. The diffierence between male and 



52 

female susceptibilities, physical, intellectual, and moral, should 
indeed be regarded in education. That gentleness should 
especially prevail in our intercourse with girls, that we should 
rely more upon the affections, as being the predominant char- 
acteristic of woman, I should be sorry to hear any education- 
ist deny. But that all girls, at every age, are entirely excluded 
from the necessity of physical control, is a position that I 
presume mothers, even, would not maintain. Girls, as 
well as boys, may need to have their physical sensibilities 
addressed ; but still they should be addressed as the sensi- 
bilities of girls, and not of boys. Tho appeal to sympathy 
on such a topic is the more unwarrantable , as it subjects an 
opponent to a kind of odium which is the most unpleasant 
to be borne. 

Admitting, then, and earnestly urging^ that all possible 
moral incentives and persuasives should be used without 
stint or measure, in bringing both old and young to a sense of 
duty, — advice, expostulation, entreaty, affection, conscience, 
religion, — let me avow openly that I meant, and still mean, to 
espouse the naked doctrine, that physical coercion is, in 
certain cases, necessary, natural, and proper ; and, therefore, 
equally honorable, when used in its true relation, with any 
other agency, to both giver and receiver ; and to scout the 
sickly and ridiculous notion, that all use of pain and compul- 
sion is disgraceful and degrading, derogating from the dignity 
of owe nature, and indicating low purposes and debasing 
tendencies. 

" Corporal punishment, considered in itself, is an evil," it i& 
said. So are reproof and censure in any form, and a thousand 
other agencies. But things are to be regarded, not as good or 
evil in themselves, but in their relations. " All evils natural, 
are moral goods." To speak of things, then, apart from their 
use, is really to say nothing whatever about them. Such, 
forms of words answer very well to syllogize one into ab- 
surdity, but they can never lead to the truth. 

Sym.pathy, I have said, is the predominant feature of the age,. 



63 

I believe it. I believe that its ascendency is abnormal. 1 
believe ihat there is much pseudo-philanthropy abroad ; yet 
for wise purposes, since nothing happens by chance, as " ihe 
very hairs of our head are all numbered." This loftiest 
human theory is fast swelling itself to the point of explosion. 
Those who think this the foundation principle of our nature, 
and the limit of our highest destiny, will of course regard its 
growing supremacy as the progress of the race towards per- 
fection ; and will seem to catch the coming swell of that 
universal consonance, when all the discordant elements of 
humanity shall be resolved into perfect harmony, by the 
fullest recognition of the high, and denial of the low. Perfection 
belongs not to the finite, but to the Infinite. 

We may, indeed, extend selfishness over so wide a field, 
as to seem to annihilate it by its very magnificence ; may sink 
the individual in the community, or association, or corpora- 
tion ; merge self-love into philanthropy ; convert I into We ; 
and. blend the race, en masse, into one grand brotherhood of 
mutual love and worship, which would seem to put paradise 
to the blush, and to make an immortality on earth, far prefer- 
able to the worship of God in heaven. Thus, selfishness 
having become so perfectly systematized as to conceal its own 
machinery, man would love all, because he is all, and all is 
his. Here would be a recognition of every relation except 
the highest, while that would be lost sight of in our supreme 
regard for those that are properly subordinate to it. It is this 
vain desire to spiritualize and deify the natural man, that leads 
us to mistake a faith in the human, for a faith in the divine. 

Relying thus upon education merely, for all results, and 
starting from the broad principle, suggested by natural pride, 
though denied by revelation, that the human will is in harmony 
with the Divine will, we slide imperceptibly into the belief, that 
even the moral evil which we witness in the world, and there- 
fore cannot deny, is an accident to be avoided, and not an innate 
growth to be plucked up by the roots and cast away ; that 
only perfect example is necessary to make perfect character ; 



54 

that temptation, and straggle, and conflict may be dispensed 
with. We thus become prepared for the doctrine, that the im- 
pulses of love alone will lead us into all duty. This is the 
natural doctrine of the human heart ; the very instinct of that 
elemental selfishness, which forms the basis and nucleus of all 
finite and individual existence. I am most happy to quote 
from Mr. Mann* a passage very much to the point, for I like 
harmony much better than discord. 

" A child, at first, has no idea that there is any other owner 
of the universe but himself. Whatever pleases him he forth- 
with appropriates. His wants are his title-deeds and bills of 
sale. He does not ask in whose garden the fruit grew, or 
by whose diving the pearl was fished up. Carry him through 
a museum or a market, and he demands, in perfectly intelli- 
gible, though perhaps in inarticulate language, whatever arrests 
his fancy. His whole body of law, whether civil or criminal, 
■ — omne ejus corpus juris, — is, in three words, 'I want it.' 
If the candle pleases him, he demands the candle : if the rain- 
bow and the stars please him, he demands the rainbow and 
the stars." 

Here is a picture true to the life. Now this same selfish- 
ness continues to control the affections and govern all the 
actions of the individual, modified only by his relations to 
those about him, as far and as fast as he understands them. 
He naturally loves every thing as it affects himself. Why 
should he not? He gradually learns that his relation to 
others is a necessary relation, and he discovers the value and 
true use of it. But in the exercise of this social nature, he is 
still himself the centre of all his associations, and must ever 
be, throughout the whole progress of his merely human devel- 
opment. Yet his highest destiny is, to renounce himself and 
submit to God, as the only proper object of all worship ; and 
as representative of, and subordinate to this spiritual consum- 
mation, he must learn to respect and submit to his parents, 

* Lecture before the American Institute, 1844. 



55 

and to all who exercise a rightful control over him ; that the 
recognition of this duly of submission may produce a love of 
something out of and above himself. This is the necessary 
condition of love. True love is the purchase and fruit of the 
genuine spirit of obedience. If we wait to love in order that 
we may obey, we reverse the order of things and mistake the 
cause for the effect. We thus obey only our own inclinations, 
which is following the dictates of that very principle, which it 
is the purpose of all discipline to subdue. It is yielding to 
self-love, the very antagonistic principle of that perfect love 
which casteth out fear. 

While reverencing, therefore, and rejoicing in the exercise 
of, that wide benevolence which prompts us to love our neigh- 
bor as ourselves, I would insist upon the recognition of that 
first and greater commandment, to love the Lord our God 
with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength ; and 
would present as the only condition of this love, implicit sub- 
mission to his will ; and as leading to this, a prompt, and 
cheerful, and willing obedience to all who may be in author- 
ity over us. With such views, I should, of course, have no 
sympathy with those who aim to rear a structure of character 
upon the basis of self-complacency. For though such char- 
acter, being mostly superstructure, may be reared with the 
most despatch, and may therefore dazzle and mislead the 
impatient and superficial, yet, being without any sure and 
good foundation, it is certainly destined to fall to the ground. 
I should, on the contrary, attach the highest importance to 
those views, which insist upon true humility as the only firm 
and solid groundwork for a permanent fabric, and should seek 
to secure the recognition of that principle of humble submis- 
siveness and trust, which I have spoken of as being the first 
duty, — namely, obedience. 

I know the principle of mutual gratulation, of human 
supremacy or self- worship, must go through its course of 
development, and is true, to minds that are in the region of its 
ascendency ; just as every being upon the earth considers his 



m 

own zenith, as the highest point in the universe, because it 
is the point directly over his head ; and just as the narrowest 
sphere of vision is unbounded, to the mind that sees not 
its limits. But to allow this principle its proper sphere of 
influence, is one thing, and to rely upon it as the surest and 
only guide to perfection, is quite another. To value a thing 
in its true relation, is not to undervalue it, even though we 
subordinate it to something higher, and to which it properly 
leads. 

Having once become impressed with the dignity of our 
nature, and felt how noble a being is man, we arrive at the 
highest conception of our own importance, and either rest 
satisfied with merely human powers, and worship ourselves and 
one another, or, in the full blaze of a spiritual light, discover 
that we are " wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and 
naked." Hence only, succeeds that self-abasement, which, as it 
is the legitimate result of a true view of all our relations, so it 
has the sure promise of being exalted to a higher and holier 
sphere of existence, of which the natural powers of man are 
inadequate to conceive. 

Sympathy, or mutual love, is right, understood as imper- 
fection, but wrong, considered as perfection, and made the 
basis of what professes to be a complete philosophy, whose 
prevalence promises to revolutionize the action of the human 
heart, and to harmonize a nature whose very elements are 
discordant. Admitting it, then, as the promise of something 
higher, we are bound to deny our faith in it as a final result, 
since, attempting to rise by its own merits, and rejecting the 
idea of its own baseness, inferiority, and consequent subjec- 
tion, it cuts man oft' from his last and highest destiny, — the 
perfect love and worship of God, — by excusing him from 
his first and lowest duty, implicit obedience and submission 
to his authority and ordinances.* 

If I am said to dwell upon what are called religious doc- 

* For the ideas which form the groundwork of many thoughts presented 
here, I am originally indebted to the suggestions of another's mind. 



57 

trines, I answer that the subject itself, when viewed in its 
widest relations, inclines that way. Any person, in treating a 
subject, must give it that range which it has in his own mind. 
If then all authority is of God, and must be obeyed, it becomes 
indispensable, in order to settle the question whether compul- 
sion may ever be absolutely necessary or not, that we decide 
whether there is in the nature of man an innate element of evil, 
prompting him to rebellion. If there is, then compulsion 
results from resistance ; if not, then the impulses are all that is 
necessary to secure duty ; temptation is at an end ; virtue is a 
negation ; vice a nonentity ; repentance a work of supereroga- 
tion. In the former case, force may be necessary, because 
there are conflicting elements in the character ; in the latter, 
force is inappropriate, because the character is the result of 
circumstances, depending not upon choice but upon oppor- 
tunity. Every teacher, therefore, must regard what to him are 
the highest relations of his pupils. 

Again, then, I say, that believing in virtue and vice, in 
positive good and positive evil, in cheerful obedience and wil- 
ful disobedience, in humility and pride, I would teach obedi- 
ence as duty in every relation. I would reveal, rather than con- 
ceal, its obligations. I would plainly set forth its tendency 
and claims, and enforce it as early as possible. But I would 
aim at the spirit, rather than at the letter, of obedience. I 
would rather produce a consciousness of wrong and a wish 
to do better, even though ill-feeling might prevent the most 
prompt compliance, than compel the overt act while the 
heart should remain in a state of rebellion. I would by no 
means encourage too sensitive a regard to external complian- 
ces. The teacher's chief aim, excepting only those cases 
in which the disobedience of the subject may operate upon 
others by way of example, is to awaken the proper feelings 
in the child. For this reason, it is clearly a matter of great 
moment, that children, as well as teachers, should have sound 
views in regard to the nature, tendencies, and purposes of 
punishment. No pupil ought to regard his teacher as com- 
h 



58 

mitting an outrage upon him by inflicting needed pain, or 
as entering the lists with him for a trial of strength ; he 
should look upon a punishment as an act of kindness, done 
for his good. The teacher should, in every case, satisfy him- 
self that the punishment he is about to inflict will be likely to 
benefit the child, and will be understood and received by him 
aright. He cannot, of course, always know this, but he is to 
be persuaded of it in his own mind. 

The feelings with which punishments are viewed by the 
pupil being, then, an important consideration, it follows that 
the prevalence of false notions in regard to their utility and 
propriety must greatly increase the difficulty of using them, 
as well as the anxiety that results from their use. Indeed, 
such is the sensitiveness on this subject, that a teacher having 
inflicted punishment feels almost obliged to enter into an 
argument to prove that he has done right ; lest he sacrifice 
the affection of his pupils, and encounter the charge of bru- 
tality from those, whose confidence and sympathy are indis- 
pensable to him. If a child is induced to regard physical 
punishment not merely as painful, but as disgraceful, as an 
indignity offered to his very nature, as a misapplication of 
means showing want of skill in the teacher, he will be apt to 
consider himself as being more sinned against than sinning. 
Thus, setting himself up to judge the actions of the teacher, 
he, of course, is not likely to be profited by the infliction. 

To decide upon penalties, and still more to inflict them, is 
irksome and disagreeable enough, even when they are re- 
ceived and understood aright ; but when made the occasion 
of reproach and distrust, it becomes a source of serious 
concern to the teacher, and fails of its best effect upon the 
child. Nothing is more trying than the feeling of anxiety, 
after having inflicted punishment, lest the pupil may imbibe 
false impressions in regard to its purpose and tendency. 
Let any parent imagine how he would feel, if, after having 
chastised a wayward child, in addition to the pain it has cost 
him to inflict the punishment, he should, through the inter- 



59 

ference of others, suffer the partial loss of the child's respect 
and affection. 

A teacher should not be made to feel that he is constrained 
in his intercourse with his pupils. The guidance and control 
of them should be left as much as possible to him. His in- 
terest in and love for them, and their confidence and respect 
for him, should be carefully guarded, and every avenue to 
distrust and disaffection should be effectually closed. The 
parent should regard the teacher as his own representative, 
and should encourage him in the exercise of the utmost frank- 
ness and faithfulness. Indeed, the teacher must be, to a great 
extent, the intellectual and moral parent of his pupil. Sup- 
posing, then, the worst case, that a parent is obliged to entrust 
his child in the care of one in whom his own confidence is 
weak, he had better make up for the deficiency of the teacher 
by his own efforts, than diminish the pupil's respect and 
love for that teacher. The teacher and parent are so related, 
that either, by thwarting the other, is undermining his own 
authority. 

The parental nature of all care of children results from the 
very condition of childhood ; which is a state of devel- 
opment and growth ; a state of reliance upon and trust in 
others ; a state of erring and weakness ; a state in which faults 
are to be expected, corrected, and forgotten. He who guides 
children must have absolute control over them ; and be who 
is not fit for this, is not fit to control them at all ; and however 
unfit he may be, by attempting to guard and check his 
authority, to an extent incompatible with the nature of the 
relation, you only encourage artifice, and by your very want 
of confidence furnish an excuse for superficiality and unfaith- 
fulness. You cannot know the thousand influences that your 
child receives from his teacher unless you are yourself that 
teacher. Distrust and docility are incompatible. Whatever, 
therefore, may be your own convictions, do not encourage 
any distrust or dislike that may have sprung up in the mind 
of your child. This course is due, not to the unfaithful 



60 

teacher, but to the child. No one will deny that filial respect 
is a duty independent of parental worth and merit. True, 
indeed, the relation of parent, being founded in nature, cannot 
be laid aside. Equally true is it, that the relation of teacher 
ought to be respected until it is laid aside ; and should neither 
be formed nor laid aside without much deliberation. Parents 
should remember that their confidence and support are the 
strong arm of the teacher's influence. Without these he is 
crippled and discouraged, and the more so, the more fond 
and faithful he is. 

The false notions that prevail to some extent in the com- 
munity in regard to government, are very unfavorable to 
docUity and obedience. Children should not hear the author- 
ity of their parents and teachers called in question. They 
should not be allowed to speak disrespectfully of their own or 
of each other's parents and teachers, and he who through the 
press, or in any other way, encourages this, whatever he may 
intend, is a disorganizer ; is weakening and dissolving the 
primal bond of civil society, and sapping the foundations of 
social order. 

It will be seen that I have given no detailed rules of prac- 
tice. To do this would involve the consideration of a great 
variety of circumstances. "Whoever interprets my opinions 
as excusing a frequent and reckless use of the rod, wholly 
misinterprets them. I would especially enjoin it as an im- 
perative duty, first to exhaust all the moral means we can 
command, when there is the least prospect of their being 
regarded. The only chastisement I would advocate or ex- 
cuse, is that which springs from love in the teacher towards 
the pupil, and the legitimate tendency of which is to beget or 
increase love in the pupil towards the teacher. I have not 
written with reference to usages and practices prevailing in 
any particular region, but with reference to principles existing 
everywhere. 

I have thus endeavored to exhibit, as in duty bound, the 
singular manner in which the " Reply " has dealt with the 



61 



fourth section of the " Remarks." My aim has been neither 
to flatter nor to offend any of my readers, but simply to tell 
the truth. Having shown the unfairness of my opponent, I 
wish to acknowledge his merits. Mr. Mann has fulfilled an 
important mission. He has spoken and written most effec- 
tively in behalf of the interests of education. He has set 
forth the evils of ignorance and the benefits of knowledge 
with a truly graphic pen. He has done a great good in ad- 
vising the public of the importance and value of their schools. 
He has done much to turn attention from private to public 
instruction. He has collected and diffused a vast amount 
of statistical information. He has elevated the business of 
teaching and given it nominal eclat ; has helped to organize 
teachers into a professional body, and pleaded eloquently for 
their social rank and liberal emolument. "Would he had 
never been left to undo his own efforts by the manner in 
which he has sometimes, but more than all in his " Reply," 
spoken of teachers, their qualifications, and compensation. 
He has done much to produce improvement in the physical 
accommodations of the schools — as ventilation, seats, comfort- 
able and well-arranged apartments — and for these labors he 
has received warm thanks. 

But all this is extraneous to education itself. In going 
beyond these external means he has strangely missed his 
aim. Having reared the temple and passed within the 
threshold, his labors have quite another bearing. His specu- 
lations upon education itself I cannot commend. If it were 
possible, I could earnestly wish to find him putling forth his 
strength to settle again what he has helped to unsettle, and 
to further whatever of good he has begun. 

JOSEPH HALE. 



Boston, Aprils 1845. 



NOTE. 

The following extracts from the " Twenty-fifth Annual Report 
and Documents of the New York Institution for the Instruction of the 
Deaf and Dumb, to the Legislature of the State of New York, for 
the year 1844," will exhibit some facts which it is well to have 
known, and will show that it is not the Boston Schoolmasters alone 
who are dissati fied with Mr. Mann's representations. 

" In the spring of the past year, very general attention was 
awakened by an alleged discovery that the ' Institutions for the Deaf 
and Dumb in Prussia, Saxony and Holland, are decidedly superior 
to any in this country.' This assertion was put forth by the distin- 
guished Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, in a 
report printed in the Common School Journal, and sent to every 
school district in that State. That the respectable author of that 
report should venture such an assertion without the slightest exami- 
nation of our institutions, is certainly matter for surprise and regret, 
and the reasons given for this sweeping sentence are as absurd as the 
sentence itself is unjust." 

"Absurd as were the assertions which have been examined, we 
knew that the great mass of readers possessed no means of detecting 
the fallacy ; that the theory thus presented was captivating for the 
popular mind, and that many relatives of deaf mutes would be dis- 
posed to encourage, probably to the serious eventual injury of their 
interests, the substitution, for our own, of the system of instruction 
recommended by Mr. Mann. Moreover, it seemed our duty to ascer- 
tain, beyond a doubt or a cavil, the authenticity of his statement. 

" If only half of his assertions should prove true, it would argue a 
vast improvement in the German system, and an immense increase 
in the value of its results since our last authentic advices. 

" The board, therefore, availed themselves of the opportune visit 
to Germany, for the prosecution of literary and theological studies, 
of the Rev. George E. Day, to institute inquiries which might set 
this vexed question at rest. No man in this country is better quali- 
fied for the task. Having been for some years a professor in the 
New York institution, he is familiar with the theory and practice of 
deaf mute instruction. He possessed that knowledge of the French 
and German languages necessary to a personal examination of their 
schools, and those powers of discrimination and philosophical habits 
of mind that would make his examination thorough and searching, 
and his conclusions accurate and convincing. 

" His report has recently been received, and the board lay it before 
the Legislature without comment. We trust that all who may have 
been misled by the fallacies which have given occasion to the mission 
of Mr. Day, may read this lucid and conclusive document." 

The above extracts are from the Report of the Directors, signed 



63 

by the President and Secretary. The following are from Mr. Day's 
Report. 

" I selected a passage in the Bible, containing no difficult words, 
but of such a nature as to require that nearly all the words should 
be separately comprehended in order to understand it, and gave it to 
one of his best scholars, who had been five years under instruction, 
to read. He read it twice over, but the teacher was unable to make 
out any part of it. On the second reading of another passage, by a 
scholar six years under instruction, the teacher repeated the whole. 
Experiments of this nature, repeated at other schools, seem to lead 
to the conclusion that the instructors understand their pupils, not so 
much in virtue of the intelligibility of their articulation, as by being 
accustomed to the circle of words they commonly use, combined 
with the circumstances which serve to give an idea of the meaning 
intended. The fact, confessed by the German teachers, that they do 
not understand the pupils of other schools, so well as their own, goes 
to the same point." 

" On the whole, however, it may be safely said that the utterance 
of the pupils is so indistinct and unnatural, as only to convey single 
words to the hearer. The greater part of the sounds they make in 
attempting to speak, it is altogether impossible to understand." 

" In respect to tone, the speaking of the deaf and dumb is harsh, 
unnatural and monotonous. Destitute, of course, of modulation and 
accent, it more nearly resembles what we should conceive a speak- 
ing machine might utter, than the usual speech of mankind. Some- 
times it is a whining noise, like that of one in distress, and sometimes 
a sudden concussive sound resembling the bark of a dog. In many 
cases the unpleasantnesses still farther increased by a painfully high 
or low pitch, in some instances resembling a shriek, and in others, a 
groan. When to this is added, the contortions of countenance and 
other unnatural position of the mouth, produced by the effort of me- 
chanically adjusting the organs, and putting them into play, it will be 
readily believed that the articulation of the deaf and dumb is far 
from agreeable." 

" It is very common in Germany to refer to a (so called) deaf-mute 
instructer in the school at Berlin, named Habermaass, in proof of the 
degree to which the deaf and dumb can be taught to articulate. 
That he stood very far above even the best instructed deaf mutes, 
would be sufficiently evident from the frequency with which his 
ability to converse is referred to. At the same time, it alters the case 
entirely to learn, that not only was he not born deaf, but that he actu- 
ally lost his hearing at so late a period, that when he entered the 
school at Berlin, he was still able to talk. In other words, he had 
never lost the use of language, and as the director of the Berlin 
institution, who communicated these facts to me, observed, cannot 
properly be referred to as an instance of the success of instruction 
in articulation. 'It is precisely in this manner,' he continued, 'that 
erroneous ideas are circulated, and unfounded expectations so often 
cherished in respect to what can be done for deaf mutes.' " 



64 

The following is Mr. Mann's description of deaf-mute utterance. 

" I have often heard pupils, in the deaf and dumb schools of 
Prussia and Saxony, read with more distinctness of articulation and 
appropriateness of expression, than is done by some of the children 
in our own schools who possess perfect organs of speech, and a com- 
plement of the senses. Nay, so successful are the teachers that, in 
some instances, they overcome in a good degree, difficulties arising 
from a deficiency or malformation of the organs themselves, — such 
as the loss of front teeth, the tied-tongue, and so forth. In some of 
the cities which I visited, the pupils who had gone through with a 
course of instruction at the deaf and dumb school, were employed as 
artisans or mechanics, earning a competent livelihood, mingling with 
other men, and speaking and conversing like them. In the city of 
Berlin, there was a deaf and dumb man, named Habermaass, who 
was so famed for his correct speaking, that strangers used to call to 
see him. These he would meet at the door, conduct into the house, 
and enjoy their surprise when he told them he was Habermaass. 
A clergyman of high standing and character, whose acquaintance I 
formed in Holland, told me that, when he was one of the religious 
instructors of the deaf and dumb school at Groningen, he took a 
foreign friend one day to visit it ; and when they had gone through 
the school, his friend observed that that school was very well, but 
that it was the deaf and dumb school which he had wished to see." 
— Seventh Annual Report, pp. 30-1. 



P. S. — The " calculation," alluded to on the Hth page of the Report, 
was made with reference to the " Remarks," and not to the lectures, as is 
there stated. 

It appears by information recently imparted to the Committee on the 
Report, that some of the modes of instruction described on pages 41-43, 
of the Report, have been pursued in some of the Boston schools for a much 
longer time than is accredited to them. 

On the 39th page of the second article, first line, read " Davies' " for 
" Davis's." 

In the Rejoinder to the third section of the " Reply," page 2, twelfth line 
from top, read " Eurybiades " for " Alcibiades." 



REJOINDER 



''REPLY" 



THE HON. HORACE MANN, 



SECRETARY 



iinas0a£l)ttflfett0 Boarbr of ^irncatixin. 



6; 



REMARKS" 



ASSOCIATION OF BOSTON MASTERS 



' I 



SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT. 



:o BOSTON: 
CHARLES C. LITTLE AND JAMES BROWN. 
1845. 






«CL 


<J^< ■■■c^ 




cL>-<<:_ 


<r 


<:■-«:" 


^^ 


dl CL « 


«CL. 


^ " «Li- t •«C' 


•<: 


:. -tvf-c" 


^CT" 


-d <: 


«L 


cr <r ^ 


<L 


C d ^ 


<e; 


c: <r <: 


c<L 


c < «c 


« 


•c <r <: 


<s: 


c <: <z 


«s^ 


c «r <:: 


<s:: 


d t_ < «r 


« 


c: c - ^ 


<^' 


c c <z 










<^ 




<c 


c c 4cr'' 






^ c- 5 






<c 


(O 


d 


< 


tec 








c 


■C-' 


cc 


«L 


< 


iC<S 


c 


< 


;<<•;: 


<: 


< 


L <"<:"' 


•-'-. < 


•c 


fC<3 


c: 



<: CL 

< d 

••■■< <L' 

m 



. m. 


_ o^d^ 


'•■id 


<3*C^ 


■*!S 


;c<:"' ' 




^ ■' ' 




="'^^k'" 


<«c: 


'^^'^Sfei* 


&Z,.: 


^dZ^^^^K 




cdTll^H 


i£Si 


c<l3 ''^ 


<^'' 


ccr" ' '^ 


«@e:: 


■«:" ■ 


«Ei: 


' '■<: 






^E3Ei'' 


■■a"^:<" c 


^^^^E' 


y. ,'<. t 


'i^^. 


;, '<: ^ 


fi0^f' 


^-d . • 


'*^^^ 


'■>■'<:.■ 


' «?«-" 


"■'■,;• <«r 






•c^t 




<rc - 




<::<: 




c 




CK 




CTC 




<r< 




C< 


< 


Cc 


c 


Cj^ 


< 


C< 


c 


<CC 


c 


4r< 




c<^ 


c 


C<^ 


c 


c< 


<; 



«r<:" -^miL d 



c 


<c 


<c 


^<3 


c 


<i- 


<L 


<: 


* 
* 




<iL 


c 

■ <? 


4 


^ ' < 


«C \ 


< 


* 


d^ *■ 


C 


C' 




^CZl ''^- 


<&. 


< 


^ \ 


idil" "*'■ 


' <: 


c 


C t 


^- o;^^' 


<L 


c 


(^ 1 


^dT "'' 


• <t 


< 




g^"-< 


: *r: 


<: 


~ ^ 


^" '< 


<£. 


c 


^■l 


r <: 


<t 


<: 






^ <: 


<^ 


c 




C< 




<:< 












^ 


T <<: 


-" «r 




<f 


'" <<r 


<e: 


f 


^ 






r 


^=r 








< 


S ' 




^ 




:d 


C^_ 
/•^ 


.<;4C 


c: 




C_v 


■ «<: 


<s 




Cj 


<.^ 


<s: 




>-■■ 


.<.,«! 


<L^ 




7" .^ 


■ .•■•d 


<L 






'C,<r 


«:_ 




"" 


'sic: 


< 





<i c<c 


<-"-■ 


<s: 


<x(.«: 


< 


<i: 


<fCCC 






c c<c 


< 


<L 


< c<t. 


<- 


4 


ff '«- 


<:' 




<;c« 


<Z. 


4 


cCtfT 


<r 


<1 


ccr«s: 


<i 


<£ 


<IC«7 


<: 


<i: 


CO* 




<z: 






<z: 



<r ^ c: c; "S- 



' c < c < 

<:< • < 









_ c, c: 

^ < < 



c c . 

•C:CL <Z: «• 

: c c <i - «:: 

ccc cz c 






C (f 


o 


C5 


t.'l 


cr 


o 




c 










cc 


c-ci'i- 


« t 5 


_,*■ 


•f, <::;«c: 


"«.■« 


c C 


c 


< 


^ c 


<: 


< 


<r 


<: 


< 


d 


c 


C 


( • c: 


<: 


< 


< Cl 


<r 


< 


<r 


<: 


< 


<Z 


<!_' 


c 


c <r: 


KT' 


« 


<r 


d' 


< 



<g\(«<L ■ ^ 






'c. c cc 

J <-<Cc fc 

5, ^- ^'-ilXc' 



. • <•- -■'.<; • < '.- <3c:'" 

'::■< '<i <^ '■-• «r-- 
< . .r cr <^ <-<:' 

< < < C c<L 

C .<- rC <- « 

. t c . ' <: <--c<i 
. c -c- . d c . c«c; 
■ c ..<: '- o < » cd. 
- < c f^r < <^'- 

< '< c<: < <^^ 

:< -,,,: ^<: < <'0ffl 

c c CC 5^^ 



.... cr <:< 

R <r <c: * 



c; < «r <C ■^'^ 



-<: . c 
c: <c 

C'XC < 

cc,«: 

c.c'o 

C<c <^ 

e <r <r 
c c 
c < 

^'^•^ 



c; ■ f <c 






IlKl 



csr ■ V 
c«c V 



